BLUE????????? - First Knight (1995) Discussion

[–] CalDexter 16 years ago

The film was made by Glasgow Rangers fans LOL

reply

[–] philbevs 16 years ago

they'd of done a better job.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] metalboy_5150 15 years ago

Good answer, sonbuhitsunei....not to mention the fact that "they'd OF done better" is just UNBELIEVABLE. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that the phrase is "would HAVE" not "would OF?" How does "they would of done better" make ANY sense to ANYBODY that speaks the English language even a LITTLE bit? I just don't get it.

reply

[–] philbevs 15 years ago

You sound like my old Enlish teacher. Yawn.

reply

[–] pol-edra 15 years ago

What's wrong with Old English teachers?
More seriously: the abuse of the color blue in that movie is my least concern with it. In fact, as some other poster pointed out in a different thread, it is used as a code: everything related to Camelot is blue, so it's really meant to give a certain recognizable shade to the ideal world that king Arthur means to create. From that point of view, choosing a specific color (and why not blue?) works perfectly I think. First Knight never once tries to give the impression of a realistic, historical world; it is a fantasy setting, with non-historical locations and costumes. Blue works fine with me. There's tons to be said about the costumes, story or characters on other accounts. But the color?

I'm a Sidekick and proud of it.

reply

[–] philbevs 15 years ago

I didnt really have a huge problem with the whole blue thing. Its just that the costumes looked so perfect, they reminded me of something you'd get at Disney when they put on a Knights of the Round type show whilst you munch on a Chicken in a basket.

reply

[–] jamieotr 15 years ago

Not to mention that the Arthurian Legend is just that ... NOT history but legend, so give it a break for heaven's sake!

reply

[–] philbevs 15 years ago

Just cos its a legend it doesnt give them license to make any old *beep* and why should i give em a break, they robbed me of a fiver and 2 hours of my life.

reply

[–] giaou13 15 years ago

To mouni tis manas sou poutanas gie...

THE WORLD IS YOURS

reply

[–] philbevs 15 years ago

Tool.

reply

[–] Conspirator_Slash 15 years ago

Old Man Form Scene 24: What is your favourite color?
Sir Lancelot: Blue!

That's the why. ;)
I actually liked the blue/black costumes. At least it fitted to Connery's pretty white hair.

reply

[–] heherrera 15 years ago

"the costumes looked so perfect, they reminded me of something you'd get at Disney"

i get it... you would HAVE probably enjoyed the movie more if the costumes (which in the movie are actually ment to represent the uniforms for the royal guard and armed forces) where crappier and the characters where ugly fat guys uh??

and

"they robbed me of -- 2 hours of my life."

nobody robbed you of anything actually ($tupid)... where you bound or strapped to the chair while watching the movie??

reply

[–] philbevs 15 years ago

Listen here ($tupid)... Organising a babysitter (20 pounds) then another 10 on top of that for admission and another 10 for popcorn etc topped off with my wife pecking my head cos i'd dragged her to see this turd. Id say i was robbed.

reply

[–] pol-edra 15 years ago

Then again, does this really have to do with the movie? Or in the circumstances in which you viewed the movie? Because what youd escribe sounds like hell, whatever the filmography...

"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] sylvrdragon 15 years ago

WRONG! King Arthur was in fact a real person, and not a legend. It's Lancelot that was not a real person, but in fact a legend. Idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_arthur

reply

[–] pol-edra 15 years ago

Isn't that a bit of a blunt statement? I'm not one to absolutely want legendary characters to be originally real, historical ones (after all, Charlemagne is a historical and historic king, and look where his legend is today). But it is an endlessly entertaining and fascinating field of research, and there are a number of historical hypotheses for both Arthur and Lancelot (more for Arthur than Lancelot, granted, but still).

"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] cleverfox 15 years ago

You may want to actually READ the content of your references before you post them in support of an argument. See the first sentence of the wikipedia link you supplied and which I directly quote/post below:

"King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against the Saxon invaders in the early 6th century. The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.[2]"

Looks like (quite probably) ole Art and (most certainly) Lance were both stuff of legends......

Most people aspire to drink from the fountain of knowledge, i just wanna gargle

reply

[–] sylvrdragon 15 years ago

Actually, the color of royalty is not blue, it's traditionally purple. I don't know exactly where royal blue gets its name, but it's not because it was the choice of royalty in the past. What kind of douche bases an insult on incorrect knowledge?

I have to say that I find the whole blue ting to be a bit campy. But the color most certainly is the least of the problems with this movie, let alone those silly costumes that they wore in it.

reply

[–] pol-edra 15 years ago

It depends in what century and in what country. In France, blue became the royal color in the 12th century (it had become associated with the Virgin's royal mantel in the 11th). Thus, it was King Arthur's color in French literature, while English representations tend to portray his arms as red (but there are exceptions to that general rule).

"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] cleverfox 15 years ago

Did you notice that Malagant's horse had a PINK faceplate in the final scene? Now, would you prefer blue or pink to display your kingdom's worthiness?

Most people aspire to drink from the fountain of knowledge, i just wanna gargle

reply

[–] Joletta 14 years ago

I'm pretty meh on this movie in general, regardless of the quality. I've always despised the affair between Guinevere and Lancelot and their two characters in general as ruining the life of a good man, so I guess I'm biased against this film to begin with as aggrandizing that. That said, I don't really have a problem with the theme of blue. It's a very nice shade of blue and looks great as a uniform (although did anyone notice that even the roofs of the towers and the houses in Camelot were blue??). The problem is that for it's supposedly $75 million budget, everything looks ridiculously cheap and, like one poster says, Disney-esque. For years, I actually thought it had been made by Disney. Compare this to, say, Braveheart, which came out the same year and had relatively the same budget at, according to Wiki, $72 million. Regardless of what you think of either movie, the sheer difference in production value is jarring. Yes, First Knight is more fantasy and Braveheart more historical epic, but that's just it. On roughly the same budget, Braveheart LOOKED epic. First Knight could pass for a really good direct-to-video flick. I guess it comes down to difference between the directors and producers of the two films, but I'm just wondering where all those millions went to. Because I honestly don't see $75 million worth of effort in the film.

reply

[–] CallingKevin 13 years ago

did anyone notice that even the roofs of the towers and the houses in Camelot were blue??

Just random background information on the sets:

Camelot's sets (designed by very prominent and famous designer John Box) were designed after a real medieval manuscript illustration called Tres Riches Heures of the Duc de Berry, which dates to 1410. The castle in this illuminated manuscript has blue roofs and towers, and the film designers matched the color of blue used in this manuscript.

Here is a link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Les_Tr%C3%A8s_Riche s_Heures_du_duc_de_Berry_septembre.jpg

Camelot is also inspired by Pierrefonds castle in France, which also has a little bit of a blueish roofs, all the same color, and white walls:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Ch%C3%A2teau_de_Pie rrefonds_vu_depuis_le_Parc.jpg

In the late 1860's, both of these sources inspired King Ludwig II to build his castle of Neuschwanstein: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Hohenschwangau_-_Sc hloss_Neuschwanstein1.jpg

Then in the 1950's, Tres Riches Heures, Pierrefonds, and Neuschwanstein all inspired Walt Disney for Sleeping Beauty's Castle.

So the similarity between these castles and Camelot in the movie really are in the fact that these fantasy castles are all related.

PS: A little note about this particular shade of blue, in the medieval time period it was popular in Stained Glass Windows as well as Illuminated Manuscripts- it was made out of a priceless pigment that was ground up, then turned into dye or a paint. Later, it was also named "Royal Blue" because it was so priceless, as well as later, it is the color of The Order of the Garter, Knights who serve the King/Queen of England, much like the Round Table served King Arthur.

reply

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

Thanks for the info, that was interesting. I still think the overall blueness of First Knight is a bit distracting, and trying to transpose the kind of bright colors you find in illuminations into live-action cinema is a bit of a weird idea, but I equally detest designers who think that when you do something medieval, everything needs to be drab and brown and dark. So I guess that if I had to chose between designers who like their fantasy Middle Ages colorful, and those who pretend that the "real" Middle Ages were brown, I'd have to go with the first category. ^^

Note on your remarks about the priceless quality of blue: yes, about the manuscripts (there are different recipes for blue pigments in manuscripts, not all equally expensive, but the deep and vibrant blue in the Très Riches Heures is definitely made with Lapis-Lazuli, which is expensive); but not necessarily when it comes to clothing.

The blue worn by royal people would have been expensive just like any other colour worn by the higher classes, because it was deep and dark; the more saturated the colour, the more dye required, so that dark blue, as well as dark red or dark green or dark anything, would be considered richer and belonging to a higher social rank than light blue, light red or light green, obtained from the same dyes. "Royal blue" is royal because it is saturated, not because it is made of an expensive pigment per se. There's nothing specifically difficult or expensive in dying textiles blue rather than anything else. Woad for example is easily available, and if it requires some transformation and technology (like woad-mills), it is not significantly more expensive than the rest.

I have no idea whether the blue found on Knights of the Garter changed over the Middle Ages or not; whether they switched from something else to indigo when that blue dye gradually became more common. Did the Knights even wear blue in the beginning, or is that something that later became associated with the Order as its traditional costume evolved? The ones we see today look Tudor-inspired to me, not medieval. It would be funny if the Order already dressed in blue in the 14th century to serve the King of England, because as far as I know, the royal colour in England at that time was still pretty much red (if only because blue had been a French royal colour for centuries). It's particularly funny when you look at medieval representations of King Arthur, because depending on the origin of the manuscript or artist, or the audience intended, you have "red" King Arthurs for the English, and "blue" ones for the French.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] CallingKevin 13 years ago

It would be funny if the Order already dressed in blue in the 14th century to serve the King of England, because as far as I know, the royal colour in England at that time was still pretty much red (if only because blue had been a French royal colour for centuries).

You are correct. The Livery Colour of the Royal Household is still Red. For clarification: When I said in my previous post "Later, it was also named "Royal Blue" because it it is the color of The Order of the Garter, Knights who serve the King/Queen of England, much like the Round Table served King Arthur." I meant much later in time period.... like George III time period who used blue as livery on occassion at Windsor. I didn't mean to imply that the usage of "Royal Blue" was found in England in the Medieval time period.

Did the Knights even wear blue in the beginning, or is that something that later became associated with the Order as its traditional costume evolved? The ones we see today look Tudor-inspired to me, not medieval.

The wearing of mantles for the Garter Knights dates to the 1400's, and you are correct are more Tudor than anything else. As illustrated here in 1410 (about 70 years after the order was established): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Henry_of_Grosmont.J PG The Order itself only dates to the second half of the 14th Century.

By the time of George III, Blue as a Garter color was well established and also associated with Windsor Castle, the seat of the Order (at St.George's chapel). George III also created a "Windsor Coat"- Royal Blue with a Red collar and cuffs, which, variations of which, is still worn today by male members of the Royal family as evening wear at Windsor.

reply

[–] pol-edra 13 years ago

Thanks for all the precisions. Much appreciated. FYI, the link is broken: there's an extra space at the end (.J PG should read .JPG, apparently imdb sometimes does funny stuff with links).

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] bole79 14 years ago

Blue for wisdom it must be. They weren't depressed or anything. What took the biscuit for me however was the view on the city behind the outer wall when Camelotians marched off to Ly...somehing. All the houses up the hill roofed in blue. Reminded me of that yellow in The Wizard of the Oz, clean and saturated.

reply

[–] Conspirator_Slash 13 years ago

Old man from scene 24: What... is your favourite colour?
Lancelot: Blue!

There, you have it.

I loved the deep blue on Arthur and his knights.

____________________

Valar morghulis

reply

[–] ackbarsmagnificentjackal 11 years ago

Bothered me a bit, but it's of note that before blue became the official color of france, the english actually had been using it(they switched around the time of the crusades).

What really made it puzzling is that it used the blue motif in castles made of french design, and dungeons made of french design, and outfits made of french design and weapons made of german design, all from 500+ years after the the story is set...

So while they're all going "Camelot! Camelot! Camelot!", all I'm seeing is "medieval france".

Ironically, the only guy who is meant to be french, Lancelot, is a wanderer with no discernible accent, and zero blue to his name.

The whole level of anachronism(the "ancient castle" of the badguys with a design that, from what's left, is at least 1100 ad?!!??) combined with the technically-correct massive amount of blueness was quite awkward.

I appreciate the fact that the color coding is supposed to help with everything, and there's huge symbolism to it(loyalty to camelot is blue--any character not in blue isn't thinking about camelot--especially noteworthy on the queen and lancelot, and their matching attitudes), but... it may have been slightly over-done.

Also, I'm not sure it went well with the yellow bricks. Sorta clashed.

reply

[–] pol-edra 11 years ago

The English, the French, and anybody else around the world as long as they had access to something that enables blue dye. And you are correct: there was no shortage of woad in Britain, so there was no reason for the insulars not to have blue fabric. But what I mean is that even after blue became the official colour for French royalty, that doesn't mean that everybody else stopped using it. Just the same way the French didn't stop using red just because it was an "English" colour.

I think you summed up quite perfectly what's wrong with the over-done blue; in fact, I think blue is just one of the many things the movie overdid, and it's a pity. With more subtlety, it could have been good.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] ContinentalOp 10 years ago

In certain eras in the French Middle Ages, the nobles of Paris, following the king, started to wear blue and the French people had been wearing blue commonly for years. More importantly blue became the colour of Arthur, rather than red, and he bore three crowns on a blue field on his shield.

I have always presumed that the designers of this film based Camelot upon Medieval Paris and the fact that prosperity, wealth and Arthur himself became associated with blue in medieval literature; and thus the over-abundance of blue. Camelot is wealthy and prosperous and thus it is blue.

Formerly KingAngantyr

reply

[–] fishcorn 10 years ago

I don't normally like to sit around and insult bad movies since their badness usually speaks for itself, but I just have to say that the costumes in this were hilariously bad. Not just the extreme use of blue (almost neon electric blue, which does not seem royal in any way), but the fact that the knights of the round table and King Arthur himself all looked like power rangers. What were those square metal buttons in the top part of the knights' costumes? I couldn't take my eyes off of them every time Lancelot was on screen (some of them were always slightly crooked, they looked like refrigerator magnets).

And did they think they were being subtle by draping the badguys in as much black as possible? Just should have worn signs that said in huge letters, "WE ARE BAD! WE ARE THE BAD GUYS! WE ARE EVIL!" It would have been more subtle.

reply

[–] emuir-1 10 years ago

They must have had one heck of a good deal on blue fabric! Unfortunately the costumes just look cheap. More like Star Trek crew members. I can't believe this cost $55 million.

reply

[–] craigmar 9 years ago

I agree. These are the worst costumes ever. They do look like Star Trek uniforms.

reply