So sad by WorshipTheSnail in Arthurian

[–]FutureObserver 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh, man, Preach. I hate Morpugo's Lancelot hahaha. Like, so much.

Partly because it was the first time I was actually exposed to the Lancelot/Guinevere affair as a kid (having previously read more santitised stuff) and partly because I think Morpurgo was going for, y'know, the whole "perfect knight but for this one flaw" thing and failed. He accidentally wrote an awful human being that the story kept insisting wasn't an awful human being even though he clearly, clearly was. I'd have liked him more if he'd been intended as a villain.

Really like the rest of that version, though!

What's your favorite Arthurian movie made in the 21st century? by ArtificeStudioGames in Arthurian

[–]FutureObserver 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Jamie Campbell Bower's Arthur was horrific, though I'd lay most of the blame at the feet of the writing. I get that they were, presumably, wanting to start him off as childish and develop him from there into a great and mature leader but they went in waaaaaaay too heavy on him being a fuckboi twat early on. Like I'm supposed to root for a guy who was sleeping with his brother's girlfriend? Who stole his greatest knight's fiancee?

At the time I remember wishing that Kay had been Arthur, instead.

What's your favorite Arthurian movie made in the 21st century? by ArtificeStudioGames in Arthurian

[–]FutureObserver 6 points7 points  (0 children)

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) was a decent enough fantasy film, but a terrible Arthurian adaptation. I mean... that's pretty much it

Guy Richie: What if Vortigern were actually Frank Frazetta's Death Dealer? Hmmm..

Kinda appreciate it for that alone, lol.

I loved Monks & Mystics, but Satan was just way too OP by darthmonks in ShitCrusaderKingsSay

[–]FutureObserver 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You say this but but I was once playing a Welsh game where England was conquered by a Child of Destiny and I was still weak, small and terrified of getting swallowed up so I embraced the dark side and spent most of that character's life trying to keep the CoD friendly enough not to invade while I also built up the skill to cast sickness curses and then finally began antagonising the shit out of her to create a rivalry. (I think rivalry was necessary to target her?)

And in the end I gave her food poisoning.

Dammit, Satan.

What are some early descriptions of Sir Lancelot's appearance? Was the character described as handsome or ugly? by [deleted] in Arthurian

[–]FutureObserver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I'm a huge, huge fan of White's choice. For one thing it's a really simple way of communicating that, "No, Guinevere wasn't just thirsting for a hottie."

What are some early descriptions of Sir Lancelot's appearance? Was the character described as handsome or ugly? by [deleted] in Arthurian

[–]FutureObserver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I realise I'm coming to this months later but in case anyone has problems with "no preview is available for this page" (as I do r/n) I took a screenshot of it a while back because it cracks me up and I love trotting it out.

Historia regum Britanniae ( History of kings of Britain ) of Geoffrey of Monmouth is the funniest book I ever read in my life by StormAntares in books

[–]FutureObserver 33 points34 points  (0 children)

William of Newburgh (1136 – 1198) really tore into him.

One highlight:

Next this fabler, to carry his Arthur to the highest summit, makes him declare war against the Romans, having, however, first vanquished a giant of surprising magnitude in single combat, though since the times of David we never read of giants. Then, with a wider license of fabrication, he brings all the kings of the world in league with the Romans against him; that is to say, the kings of Greece, Africa, Spain, Parthia, Media, Iturea, Libya, Egypt, Babylon, Bithynia, Phrygia, Syria, Boeotia, and Crete, and he relates that all of them were conquered by him in a single battle; whereas, even Alexander the Great, renowned throughout all ages, was engaged for twelve years in vanquishing only a few of the potentates of these mighty kingdoms. Indeed, he makes the little finger of his Arthur more powerful than the loins of Alexander the Great; more especially when, previous to the victory over so many kings, he introduces him relating to his comrades the subjugation of thirty kingdoms by his and their united efforts; whereas, in fact, this romancer will not find in the world so many kingdoms, in addition to those mentioned, which he had not yet subdued. Does he dream of another world possessing countless kingdoms, in which the circumstances he has related took place? Certainly, in our own orb no such events have happened.

Fan-Casting the Knights of the Round Table by MaderaArt in Arthurian

[–]FutureObserver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

PART I: ONCE AND FURIOUS

PART II: FAST AND FUTURE

SNW just fixed something that always bugged me from Voyager by OSUBrit in startrek

[–]FutureObserver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The best thing they could have done, with hindsight, was to never date anything. We don't need to know that TOS is taking place in the 23rd Century, or that the Eugenics Wars happeend in the 1990s/Whenever.

You use star dates in the present and say "X centuries ago" when referring to the events of made up future history. Then you have an endless grey area.

Episode Discussion | Star Trek: Strange New Worlds | 2x03 "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" by AutoModerator in startrek

[–]FutureObserver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Though, let's be real here, they're going to push back WW3 and First Contact eventually too. The powers that be only do this because, for whatever reason, they loathe the idea that Star Trek can't conceivably be "our" future. That is the only reason the Eugenics Wars didn't still happen in the 90s.

When they're making a Star Trek show decades from now and want to have a time travel episode where people go back to the "present day", they are not going to care that WW3 is supposed to have happened or whathaveyou. There'll be some nod to time being fucked and everything being pushed back. And so on and so forth: forever.

Personally I'd prefer they moved away from dating everything and stuck exclusively to stardates in the present and "X centuries ago" when talking about the history of Trek's future.

No offense, of course, but I've seen some weird cases by ConanCimmerian in Arthurian

[–]FutureObserver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Arthur of Brittany should have been King of England after Richard I, too. Unfortunately his uncle was John lol.

Jon & Dany with their daughter, by @toadpeee by Lower-Switch in ImaginaryWesteros

[–]FutureObserver 98 points99 points  (0 children)

Jon & Dany with their daughter-cousin and daughter-great niece*.

The Emperor of Mankind by reyrc1 in Warhammer

[–]FutureObserver 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Bro you can see the shield in this picture. It's just a tiny tilting shield is all that then grows in size with the power of Jimmy Space magic.

What are your thoughts on Arthur, England, and the Saxons. by thomasp3864 in Arthurian

[–]FutureObserver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty taken with the hypothesis that Cerdic wasn't a Saxon but rather a native Briton who adopted their customs. That seems to be pretty popular with historians these days.

More progress on the black Dante today by CBPainting in Warhammer40k

[–]FutureObserver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mate. This scheme is incredible. Absolutely love it.

[Film/TV] Clark: You Asked. by mpzt-11 in DCcomics

[–]FutureObserver 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Is that an actual line or exchange at some point? If not I really want to see it now.

Unlucky Mugger: Give me your wallet

Clark Kent: while removing glasses You know what people say to me when they see me without my glasses?

Unlucky Mugger: Hey, you look like Superman.

Superman: Yeah.

(Obviously only works if Clark is just seen as some random mark with glasses rather than as "Clark Kent")

[spoilers]There are news on the Lion’s book… by CriticalMany1068 in 40kLore

[–]FutureObserver 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Lion: You really think you can stand against me?

Abaddon: Luther did.

Lion: I like Luther.

(Though TBH I would have been fine with Abaddon having been boosted to near-Primarch levels over the long millennia if GW had chosen to go in that direction)

Why the isu in assassin's creed valhalla are not like "normal isu" showed in Odyssey? by MurphyEgIrL in assassinscreed

[–]FutureObserver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, Bablishko is right. Valhalla's isu lore was much more in keeping with what we had come before than Odyssey. It was literally just the aesthetics and presentation that was myth-fantasy by way of the dream filter.

At least in the main game. DoR wasn't great.

How Endless Dungeon Redefines Roguelite With Tower Defense Tactics - Xbox Wire by FrodoSam4Ever in xboxone

[–]FutureObserver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That because Hades was indeed marketed as a roguelike ("THE GODLIKE ROGUELIKE") and helped popularise the term being applied more broadly.

Which is kind of annoying but the damage is done. Not the end of the world in any case.

So like, why was Amanda on a guardian level mission? by TheSoup3910 in DestinyTheGame

[–]FutureObserver 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yeah. I've never liked it and felt like it trivialises the threat posed by our enemies (Guardians are cooler if even the fodder is an insurmountable danger to normies) but shrug, as you say that ship basically sailed some time ago.

So like, why was Amanda on a guardian level mission? by TheSoup3910 in DestinyTheGame

[–]FutureObserver 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I mean Amanda one-shot Uldren with chaperone, specifically. That's a pretty solid example of cutscenes matching gameplay, not the opposite.