how is the movie king arthur different from the real story?
145046
I assume you are referring to the most recent King Arthur movie, starring Keira Knightley as Guenevere.  This particular King Arthur movie is based on one of the first historic accounts of Arthur by Geoffrey of Monmouth.  Monmouth's account describes King Arthur as a Roman-Briton soldier that helps the remaining Britons to fight against invaders. So, for the most part, give or take a few overly indulged details and extra scenes, the movie is surprising accurate.
355949
You must go to the source and read "Le Morte D'Arthur" by Sir Thomas Malory
184275
The possible historicity of the Arthur of legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought believes Arthur to have lived sometime in the late 5th century to early 6th century, to have been of Romano-British origin, and to have fought against the pagan Saxons. His power base was probably in either Wales, Cornwall, or the west of what would become England. However, controversy over the centre of his power and the extent and kind of power he wielded continues to this day.\n\nSome members of this school, most notably Geoffrey Ashe and Leon Fleuriot, have argued for identifying Arthur with a certain Riothamus, "King of the Brettones," who was active during the reign of the Roman Emperor, Anthemius. Unfortunately, Riothamus is a shadowy figure of whom we know little, and scholars are not certain whether the "Brettones" he led were Britons or Bretons.\n\nOther members of this school have argued for identifying Arthur with Ambrosius Aurelianus, a Romano-British war leader who won important battles against the Anglo-Saxons probably including the Battle of Mons Badonicus.\n\nOther writers suggest that King Arthur should be identified as one Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman dux of the 2nd century, whose military exploits in Britain may have been remembered for centuries afterwards. This is linked to a theory by C. Scott Littleton and Linda Malcor suggesting a Sarmatian Arthur, which was the basis of the film King Arthur. The obscurity surrounding Artorius makes this identification unlikely, as there seems to be little reason for him to have become a major legendary figure. This figure also seems to be early, given early mentions of Arthur fighting the Saxons.\n\nGraham Phillips and Martin Keatman argued in "King Arthur The True Story" that Arthur's name might not be derived from a Latin original such as Artorius, as normally suspected, but could have been a nom de guerre used by the leader who fought against the Saxons. The first component would be "arth" meaning bear, and the second component a repetition in Latin, "ursus", making the original name "Arthursus". To support this argument they refer to mentions by Gildas of "the Bear". They felt that he would must have been one of the Votadini of Gwynedd. They feel Arthur may have been Owain Ddantgwyn, King of Rhôs.\n\nJohn Darrah and Arthur Cummins propose an Early Bronze Age Arthur, circa 2300 BC. They argue that pulling a sword from a stone and an anvil is a metaphor for making a sword from ore and hammering it into shape on an anvil. Many would agree that at least some elements in the Arthurian story are older than the times in which he is felt to have been alive.\n\nAnother theory proposes that the real Arthur was Artur Mac Aidan, a war leader of the Scots and Britons. By this theory, Artur was predominantly active in the region between the Roman walls—the Gododdin. Artur was never "king" per se, but rather the son of the Scottish king Aidan Mac Gabran, who ruled from about 574 AD. As claims this website ([1]), Artur led a loose coalition of the Christian Celts against their pagan invaders—effectively holding them off for about one hundred more years. However, his generation also included other people named Artur or some variant of the name, suggesting that it was first popularized by another—namely, our Arthur. In modern times, Mac Aidan's name is spelled Artuir.\n\nThe late historian John Morris made the alleged reign of Arthur at the turn of the 5th century the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland under the rubric The Age of Arthur: A History of the British Isles from 350–650' (1974), even though he found little to say of a historic Arthur, save as an example of the idea of kingship, one among such contemporaries as Vortigen and Cunedda, Hengest and Coel.\n\nAnother school of thought believes that Arthur had no historical existence, expl
457979
It is all open to conjecture. Some of the characters or events are actual historical persons/events e.g. Mary Magdalene did exist..whether she was indeed the "wife" of Jesus is open to debate...the Knight's Templar did exist..whether they were privy to "the great secret of Jesus's marriage and blood descendants" is another story...same goes for Leonardo da Vinci. Dan Brown does not make claim that any of these events are in fact true; they are loosely based on historical facts. Archaeology and in deed biblical history/archaeology has a hard time reconciling events in the bible to factual historical accounts. This is because the bible was borne out of oral traditions. There is little that is "eye witness testimony". It is however safe to say that christian beliefs, rituals and practices are an amalgamation of other religious traditions since nothing is born in a vacuum.
89314
well, i dont knwo any good sites, but since we're learning about this here goes:  Arthur's dad was the king and he liked this dudes wife.  he got merlin to change him into her husband and he went to the guy's palace and they created a baby. but before all this happened, merlin agreed to help arthur's dad (can't remember name) if merlin got to keep the baby.  so merlin took the baby afterwards and asked a dude to raise him.  (can't remember his name either 8/) so then, one day, when arthur's dad died, (he didn't knwo about his true parentage), merlin made a competition to see who would become the next king.  (he knew arthur would be able to pass).  he said that everyone should try to pull this sword out of this rock, if he could, he's king!  then a whole thing happens where arthur pulls the sword out and he becomes the king, and is told about his parentage.  if you need more, email me and i'll try to find a good site.
335429
While the story is fictional, the depiction of World War 2 in the movie is considered the best ever.  It is the most accurate depiction of what really happened, unlike what video games depict.
194224
There is no true story or real people.  It is a work of fiction.  The movie was based on the Stephen King novella "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption".
410705
The movie is based on a true story and real events, but keep in mind the movie is a drama and not a defnite non-fiction documentary. Check out these links for info on accuracy:
798487
"Man on Fire" wasn't based on a true story. It's the remake of a 1987 film.  The film was originally based on a series of books by author A. J. Quinnell.
495280
The movie is based on a fictional novel so why would you go into seeing it believing it was a documentary?  It is just entertainment.  Part of it can be based on fact like the trully existing Opus Dei or on fiction as the fictional characters that are in the movie.  Take it as you like it.  If you believe there is truth to it believe it if you do not don't believe it.  In the end it is not a documentary it's an action adventure movie.  Go to see it with an open mind.
756446
Fictional, the movie was based off a book
887574
A movie is fiction not fact.
341883
It's also in a movie about King Arthur, a satire.
599113
It is a movie about fictional event.
653133
haven't seen the movie myself, but it very well could be. \n\nwe as humans tend to tell the same stories over and over again. very similar "savior" stories are found in many of the worlds religious traditions, not only christianity. \n\ni believe that we are expressing the archtypal truths of humanity through these stories. and that they will continuously manifest through out life. read "the power of myth" by joseph campbell. he documents this phenomenon very well.\n\n and i don't mean to to say that Jesus Christ wasn't a real man who did magnificent things. but just that there have been other incarnations of beings sent here to lead humanity towards it's true nature of Love and Unity. \n\ni do believe that most people miss the point or the lesson that the Holy Masters have come to teach. they get stuck in the dogma and miss the true essence of the Spirit. but we are evolving and this is part of that process. we will all get there eventually.\n\n*peace
1110127
There is much fact in this movie, from the leprous king, to the battle at the Horn of Hattin, and such. If you look at the movie for pure entertainment value, you will find it lacking. the crusades were a brutal time, rife with power plays, betrayal, and lots of destruction, which did not got well for the Christians at the end of the fifth crusade. As for the elf, i don't believe him to be the warrior type that fought in the crusades, certainly not a Templar.\n    But it is a  movie in the end. \n   Three of five stars.
936790
The movie is about a set of twins (both roles played by DeCaprio). When they were born, the King told the Queen that one died and he placed that child in a "protected place" with a caregiver. The King believed this was a way of protecting the throne. \nOnce the King died, his son took the throne and was not liked by the people. He was a bad king (to say the least). Eventually this new king discovered that his brother never died, so he had him imprisoned in an iron mask to conceal his face/identification from the public. He did not want to share the throne. \nDuring his father's reign, there were four main muskateers which protected the royal family.\nThree of these men quit because they no longer believed in the new King's ways of ruling. The only one that remained was Dartangon. He had now become the King's right hand man. The other Muskateers could not understand why he would not defect like them. \nWhat the King did not know was that one of the defective Muskateers knew of his brother's, the other twin's, placement into the mask. This Muskateer comes clean and tells the other two. They form a plan to "break" the young man out of prison and to educate him in the ways of royalty and switch him with his brother during a royal party. (You see, no one else knows there are two children.) All goes well, until Dartangon realizes there is a change in the personality of the King. He catches on and finds there are two children. \nThe catcher is that he, Dartangon, is actually the father of the twins. He was having an affair with the Queen, who is still alive and very much in love with him too. He had been hiding the secret for years. He comes clean to the other Muskateers and they finnaly realize why he would never defect, eventhough he agreed the King was an awful King. \nThe King tries to kill his brother and all four muskateers are trying to protect the good twin. There is a "showdown" and the King accidently stabs Dartangon, his father, and kills him. With his dying breath his tells the twins he is there father. ALL of the Muskateers here this and are sworn to secrecy by the creed and they decide to put the King into the mask and his brother on the throne. The good twin is now King and places the bad twin into a nice seclusion with a deaf, blind mute so the secret will not be out. France is happy again and Dartangon is a hero muskateer.