In the modern movie interpretation of the long loved mythical tale King Arthur we see a handful of changes compared to the Geoffrey of Monmouth article. When investigated, these changes are quite historically inaccurate and definitely do not correctly represent the article we read. For example, in class we talked about the fact that in the movie trebuchets were used but the trebuchet was not invented until the 12th century but the story of King Arthur takes place in the 5ht or 6th century. Another example of this is the inclusion of a strong female lead played by Keira Knightley while there are not any female characters of major importance in the Geoffrey of Monmouth text. Now one could say that these changes are made to make the story more modern as this is a 21st century piece of film but I would disagree as there are other aspects of the film that are not as modern thinking such as the strange nudity scene involving Keira Knightley as well as the the scanty outfits that the Woads wear compared to their male warrior counterparts. So if there are all these inaccuracies about the tale of King Arthur in the film, then my question is why did it do so well in theatres both in the United States and worldwide? The movie made a $50 million gross in the United States alone and earned another $150 million in the rest of the world.
My hypothesis for as to why this movie reaped in cash while seeming low effort is quite simple. People don’t really care about historical accuracy or complete gender equality when they are going to see a movie. Especially when it comes to the action/adventure genre movies are judged based on how cool that fight scene was or how capturing the plot line is not how historically accurate the story is. This is the reason why we see a lot of action movies nowadays that are loosely based upon or even just draw one or two aspects of a story from medieval or earlier times and then modernize it to appeal to audiences of today.