I really liked Mauler's asides in this one. Laughing and breaking up the silence with the boys is great, but there are a few subtle things going on in a few scenes that I missed until they were pointed out. It's actually nice to see that even B-tier movies from the early 2000s had good unspoken writing/acting bits that carried character. It's not all garbage, even if the final film is a 6/10 or so.
@@bobbymarr1297 I think he finds stuff to complain about because he thinks it's his "thing" and he can't just sit and watch quietly. He needs to speak up, regardless of its use in conversation.
Fun fact, the word Saxophone does indeed derive from "Saxon," as the instrument was named for its designer Adolphe Sax, whose surname denotes him as a distant descendant of members of the ancient Saxon tribe.
Was it, though? He's got a strong natural voice, but apart from that I didn't see anything to commend his his wooden and horribly-directed performance.
As a King Arthur adaptation, I appreciate how this film went back to the character's historical basis, with Arthur being a Romano-British warrior fighting the Anglo-Saxons in Post Roman Britain.
A few fun facts: The Sarmatians were a nomadic people whose origins can actually be traced to Iran. They inhabited the Eastern European steppe. The whole "Rus" thing is a reference to them living in what would later be Russia.
The nobility of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth claimed descent from the Sarmatians, though that may be on par with the Romans claiming descent from Trojan refugees. Though it is a using that the movie is positing that the Knights of the Round Table were proto-Polish.
@@anthonykeane4984 Because there were Vikings in Russia. They conquered and occupied Kiev and points even farther east. They didn't refer to all Vikings as Rus: just the Rus Vikings who lived there for generations of occupation and rule over parts of Russia.
It's definitely a film they need to do. Especially now that MauLer has started watching Star Trek. Master and Commander is one of the best Star Trek movies.
"Master and Commander" is an excellent Chase movie like "The Hunt for Red October"; Slower than "Bullet" or "Duel", "Mad Max". This Movie Arc type would be interresting to explore.
But he made the very deep and insightful comment about how acting is based on how much you move your head when speaking. It's really helped me in my critical analysis of media.
Skarsgård's character decided to burn the city instead of living in it so he doesn't have to listen to people making jokes about having a "Sax dungeon".
7:15 - Shad is technically correct both the term 'Knights' and the term 'Equites' had their own significant social connotations in their respective periods... BUT the terms are and have been used interchangeably in translations for centuries.
No, Shad is dead wrong. The Roman equites' social standing was exactly the same as medieval knights. They were nobles, the title was hereditary and they were just below the senate. Later, when the legions got bigger the equites in the legions saw their role reduced to officers. But it was still a noble caste of professional warriors trained to fight on horse back, with roles of leadership, so... Exactly like medieval knights. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equites
Yeah the term "knight" or "knave" is specific to English, but most other languages just translate it to a variation of "horseman", like the french "chevalier" which is the direct meaning of "equites"
Another idea is to do a Camelot Marathon with films like First Knight, The Sword In The Stone, Quest For Camelot, Excalibur (1981), A Kid In King Arthur’s Court, Sword of the Valiant: The Legend of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, The Green Knight (2021), Tristan & Isolde, and so on.
Part of me wants to see that, but another part of me would think they'd eventually start going insane seeing King Arthur stuff over and over, no matter how different they may be.
The guys actually nit picked this one to death, I’m sure they were tired or drunk but yeah this is definitely not the worst of the arc. Glad mauler actually pushed back on the quality of the film
Shad is not an expert on acting, and his constant critique on Clive Owen is almost as obnoxious as his peaking the mic. Not everyone starts screaming when they get a little emotional or have to share their opinions.
Pretty sure it's been bad since 300. Combine that with his annoying voice, shouting, and pathological aversion to saying anything insightful and things get even worse.
Shads a charlatan. I'm an actual historian, graduated college and everything. Listening to his commentary and watching his videos is painful. Dude spits straight BS.
The stirrup historical inaccuracy is indeed a thing, but saying it's as bad as "Henry VIIIth having a mobile phone" is a very disingenuous take. Human civilization has been exponential; a 500 year leap at the start of A.D. is not the same as the 500 year leap to present-day, in terms of inventions and progress. The knights having stirrups here just means, they're safer riding their horses. Name me one Arthurian legend that changes significantly by the knights having stirrups. Meanwhile if you introduced a mobile phone to one of Shakespeare's stories, it definitely changes; half of his stuff is about characters not getting information accurately/fast enough.
stirrups massively improve the ability to control a horse. the final battle of the movie would be impossible without stirrups. i would have to go through the legends again to check those (but most of the legends are not based on the reality of the real arthur but set in high-late medieval period so are not the best example to look to). the movie does change the story if they don't have stirrups.
^.-.^ I will say, despite the inaccuracies, I do like this film. Especially a lot of the dialogue moments and camaraderie between the characters, and the villain you just canae help but enjoy. I like it.
Everyone is different. Some people watch movies and follow what the story and characters are doing. Others prefer to talk so much about stirrups and saddles that they have no clue what’s going on the entire time.
Really? When? Every history book I've ever read uses the original term, barring maybe describing them as Rome's version of knights when introducing it.
@@Pink.andahalf Equites where the proto knights. The were cavalrymen that later became a social class. I've always heard them referred to as Roman Knights if not Equites. Infact logically speaking the whole system of knighthood stemmed from the Rome. Having a horse didn't make you a knight until Rome gave you that title. Often given to the sons of captured peoples in order to educate them in roman ways and indoctrinate them.
I remember watching this in theaters. Twice (second time was with a friend). I still remember lines and scenes from this movie as the writing and portrayal of the characters, while not stellar, sounded like they had effort put into to it. Rewatching this kinda crystallized why I hate the newer stuff that comes out. Films from this era at least TRIED to be good entertainment and become classics. And they would fail because the people behind it just weren’t good enough, didn’t have enough budget/time, and/or production issues. And even the bad movies are at least entertaining or memorable in some way. Compared to “movies” nowadays where you have terrible people who don’t know what they are doing, have access to TOO much money, have no deadline to finish it, and just want to create what are essentially RUclips Life Blogs.
Scythians, Hungarians and Sarmatians used stirrups and existed even before Christ, so it is not that unexplainable that they have, especially because of the Sarmatian connection.
Yeah when Shad was criticizing their existence at this time period I had to doubt my own knowledge, since my recollection was the Sarmatians had stirrups since like almost as far back as Alexander the Great.
@@CrustlessKing yeah if he meant that Romans usually didnt have stirrups he would've been right. But again Romans fighting next to Sarmatians could easily adopt it considering how beneficial it was for cavalry warfare, even in Roman age (although somewhat later) when eastern nation (with stirrups) like Huns, Avars and Hugnarians attacked the Romans
@@CrustlessKing I can't stand Shad because all he seems to do is state his opinion as if it was historical fact. I'm no expert on history, but a lot of what he says seems debatable.
@@bobbymarr1297 I mean, the guy certainly knows a lot of facts about the late middle ages in western Europe, but he himself has said before that his area of focus is pretty narrow, so he doesn't know as much about other periods and regions, and occasionally makes mistakes. When you're being invited on a panel and asked about a lot of information tangential to your expertise but just outside your grasp of certainty, I can see feeling like you want to still offer insight to contribute to the discussion even if you risk getting some details wrong. I often reference cool historical trivia in conversations with friends and family but have to disclaim at the end how I could be totally misremembering and giving a really bad account but whatever, history has lots of inconsistencies and gray areas anyway. Shad should maybe say something like that more often, but it's not a huge deal unless you're expecting him to be an expert on literally all of history.
@@CrustlessKing see if he'd said things like "hmm I don't think they'd have access to stirrups at this point." That's totally fine that he got it wrong he just stated his thoughts. It's the fact he's screaming it over and over to the point no one can follow the movie that's the issue. He's not leaving room for interpretation, admitting he could be wrong or even stating his displeasure once. He's making it so people like rags don't even know what's going on in the movie by constantly screaming his opinions.
"Who is this Arthur?" "It is said he has never been defeated in battle. No man can defeat him. No weapon forged-" "Very well, send Eowyn with Xander's rocket launcher."
@@alexanderrique579 this would be heaven and would make this videos 10 times better i always have to skip the püarts when he talks because he is just annyoing
Not a bad movie, and it’s pretty consistent with itself. If it weren’t for the intro card saying it’s historical, I’d almost call it a pretty good movie.
The excellent series, "Robin of Sherwood" introduced Nasir-- a Saracen two sword fighter--and that's been a trope ever since. Nasir is still the best version.
Do not ever suggest people back up from their mics. People need to be right up on their mics and, for many mics at least, talking past them instead of AT them. Fringy always sounds like he's shouting at his mic from the next room and he's probably only a short distance from it, but nowhere near short enough. Room echo is much much worse when people are farther from their mics because they're speaking too loudly and the mic's gain also needs to be higher than it would if they were right up on the mic. But Shad definitely needs to not have imbecillic sperg outs every 5 minutes... or ever... The only credit I'll give him is that he doesn't seem to have the stupid problem Gary, Marc the Cyborg, and Stuttering Craig used to/still do where they feed back what they hear to discord/streamlabs and use echo cancellation to counter that instead of just not causing the problem in the first place. This is why they, and everyone else, sound like they're underwater every time they're involved in any crosstalk, including with their own shared media/soundboard nonsense.
Great little edit explaining and representing the good stuff from the film so that its not just being laughed at xD Also this movie is making me love Vikings more and more that show is so good and feels accurate to the period not sure but tactics and weapons were very rag tag instead of fancy and cool
When I was in college, in my Medieval History class, we watched this movie, and then had to choose a primary and secondary historical source to write a paper to confirm and debunk the various elements of the story. It mostly checks out. The gist of this story is mostly accurate. The absurd movie stuff clearly isnt, but there was a Sarmatian Knight named Arturius that was taken from Britain as a child and lead whats left of the company. Bede mentioned several of the knights by the names used in the movie/legend. He did stay behind to protect the Romans fleeing Britian, including the Pope's nephew and the locals as the Saxons invaded. He made a pact with the Picts for their help. Arturius married a chieftains daughter. That battle on the frozen lake happed. Obviously the Battle of Badon Hill, where Sir Robin the Brave personally wet himself, really happened. The political manuvering with the popes and the excommunication of Arthur's mentor happened... though no proof he was actually Arthur's mentor. Its pretty accurate. The stuff thats not accurate is obviously the dramatic movie stuff, the crazy array of weapons and gear from around the world the knights used. And the Battle of Badon Hill... 12 knights did not hold off the whole Saxon army with bizarre tactics. And the Saxons would have ran trains on the women, to make more Saxons. It was pretty much standard practice with any invading and occupying forces. The Romans did the same thing.
Some of the inaccuracies are easy for me to gloss over, like the saxon attacking the woman. He stated their laws encouraged it, so it's set up as just the leader's policy that goes against customs. Him just being some crazy extremist is easier to accept. Even the array of weapons if they brought them from their original countries or modeled them after them that seems acceptable to me. And the final battle did have the native britains as well.
Man, Shad is like the most annoying person to watch a movie with. Jeez. Shut up about the armor and the swords. SHUT UP ABOUT THE ARMOUR AND THE SWORDS SHAD!!!
I'd be OK if he did a short spiel on it at a reasonable volume and then let it go. Instead he feels he has to talk over everyone constantly to stress that he's the "expert" over and over. He's the kinda guy who gets a post-it note staple-gunned to his head in the army.
Hey I just mentioned that. The only good part is Arthur. Guinevere is okay. Lancelot looks like what he is, a modern American man playing a medieval knight. Almost everyone is outclassed by Connery in that movie, but especially Gere.
@@TheSatisfiedPig The senior henchman to the villain has a perfect intimidator voice. That, King James Bond, and doinky costumes are all I remember from seeing it as a kid.
What's crazy is that, like Kingdom of Heaven, I think this is another movie that's minorly improved by theatrical cut. A handful of things that were cut include: 1) the knocking at Arthur's door when he's with Guinivere, so he doesn't go into battle with blue balls (i.e. what I can only imagine to be a fate worse than death) 2) the Saxons killing their own wounded dude running for his life outside the wall gates; in that version, he falls down halfway to them and you just assume he dies like that 3) the "Woad" girl power moment with Guinivere and friends tag-teaming one random Saxon What's probably improved by the director's cut though is: 1) that entire scene with young Arthur and Pelagius, to inform his admiration and belief in him 2) the scene where Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgard) demotes Cynric (Til Schweiger) and scars his face, telling the other Saxon. "You're like a son to me," which is perfection. That said, you do lose Cynric killing a random soldier out of daddy anger 3) I'm pretty sure that one conversation with Guinivere and Lancelot, talking about themes. They showed a lot more of his interest in her, along with Arthur's, which is a nice reference to the legendary love triangle And I'm sure there's a few more examples that are slipping my mind. Them's just what I can remember from watching when I was a youngling
The funny part is that Tristan, the “cool-guy”, if I remember correctly was well known for his archery. Dude had a bow named Failnaught. It actually would’ve been pretty cool had his whole shtick been that he wasn’t very good with a sword compared to the others
Underworld, Child’s Play, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday 13th, Evil Dead or The Purge would be good choices. Paranormal Activity seems like a pretty solid guess too.
We watched this in school for History class once, no idea why, but at the end the teacher asked me "what did we learn from this then" and I said "Uhh King Arthur was actually a Roman?" and then everyone clapped. Being real I have no clue why we were watching it at the time, it was so mildly related to Roman stuff and was pretty obviously "iffy" on the historical accuracy front. Most teachers pretty much just sort of immplicily admit watching films is a way to fill time while they do other work or just have a break by making people write up some random bit about parts of it, no idea what this guy wanted me to say about the ending of this. I didnt even mean it as a joke I was just genuinely confused why he was asking, may as well have been watching star wars for ww2 and then asking people what we learned.
There wouldn’t have been Papal armies at this point in history. The Pope at this point would have been one of the Patriarchs of the Church and still very much under the authority of the Roman State
My fannibal heart got a little emo seeing Hugh and Mads together on screen again 🥹 Also didn’t know Ray Stevenson was in this 💔 rest in peace Baylan Skoll
Stephen Dillane isn't the only GoT actor here, you also have Clive Russell (who played Blackfish) as Lancelot's father, and Owen Teale (who played Alliser Thorne) as Pelagius
The last bit of this vid needs to be clipped out for a separate vid to show that you guys don't live in an echo chamber. its good to see stable discourse on a movie. I'm with mauler, great movie.
I’ve been listening to some old open bars and I’m having a blast listening to Mauler, Drinker and others making predictions and being hilariously wrong in some instances as to what shows or movies will be good/bad 😂 but a new movie EFAP is a much welcome production!
This was an interesting one, Shad was his usual loud, moronic self thinking his overly angry bit was funny, Rags straight up just not paying attention and seemingly annoyed to be doing this, and poor Mauler trying desperately for anyone to care, understand and appreciate any of it!
This is the first film in the War Arc that I'm not entirely sure if I've seen it before or not, but some scenes were definitely familiar to me so maybe randomly flipping through channels or something I dunno. Anyway, commenting for the algorithm and to support this War Arc even though I have no strong personal opinions about this movie one way or another. Anyway, see you next month, love this series.
I know the film isn't great but I don't think the guys gave it a chance in the second half - it's not hard to follow the characters motivations and plot in this film. There's a lot of "confusion" from them as to what's going on
@@bobbymarr1297maybe I’m being biased as someone who likes Rags and finds Shad horrendously annoying most of the time, but I can absolutely believe that to have been the case
This movie is ridiculous; knights and anti-Christian pagan Britons in the 5th century. For God's sake, the opening text uses : "Dark Ages" and "historical consensus" in the same paragraph. Historically "accurate" my left nut hahahaha!
@@bobbymarr1297 Although not completely converted to Christianity by this point, Britain was heavily Christian by the 5th century. If this story took place in like the 2nd or 3rd century, when Britain was a more religiously mixed nation, the animosity would make more sense.
@@thomasciuffreda8783 well they specified at the beginning of the movie that the knights complaining about Christianity were the ones conscripted from other countries as older children. I don't think anyone shown to be born in Roman controlled Britain was anti Christianity.
I like how excited Shad gets, but something has to be done about his audio situation wether it is through editing or getting him a new mic or getting him further away from the mic/not shouting as much. FYI for anyone who finds themselves talking too loudly when using something like discord, turn your headphone volume down and turn the sound canceling off. People often unconsciously raise their voice to be heard like, for example, if you were in a bar or loud restaurant and your brain doesn't understand that you're actually in a quiet room when your ears are hearing a discord channel of a bunch of people talking plus a movie.
Arthur: All men are inherently equal under God, and free to choose his own destiny, which is a belief that I hold as a Roman in the 5th century Also Arthur: Sure, I'll be King lol
While I certainly agree that this woman could in no way pull back a war bow of all things I would say her struggling to pull back a 30 lb one is unrealistic. As I am an archer and I can pull back a 40 lb bow pretty easily and that was before I could do push-ups. Not a compound bow either recurve hunting bow. Shad is right, but he is underestimating a bit.
I think that issue could have easily been resolved by hiring a more athletic actress. If they'd hired someone with more muscle it'd be more believable she was a warrior.
I feel like this was the worst EFAP Movies and Mauler recognized it and tried to save it through edits. Shad wouldn't shut up the whole time with takes that were often inaccurate or debatable, which he states with such confidence/arrogance. It felt like Rags didn't even see the movie, maybe because he couldn't hear it over Shad, because he was constantly complaining about things that were explained. I thought maybe I just felt annoyed because I really like this movie, but my wife hadn't seen it and had never heard of Shad and was screaming shut up at the tv and Mauler seemed to be getting really annoyed by their (generally Shad, Rags and Sargon)'s inaccurate takes.
Unfortunately it's what happens when you have a bunch of history buffs trying to watch a movie. It becomes a dick measuring contest of who knows more and it's like guys just shut up and enjoy the movie for the damn story. Like we get it it's not historically accurate. No shit
@@jlogan2228 One history buff and one armchair expert who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground on anything outside his very narrow focus of study, much of which is laden with BS.
Except the movie literally starts by claiming itself to be the true historically accurate account... they are completely right to make fun of it for being such a self-righteous clown show. (Shad definitely could have been calmer though)
@@lordvarrax5060 it doesn't say it's a biopic or anything it says that evidence showed Arthur may be based on a historical person as opposed to pure fiction. Not this is what his life was like exactly. And a lot of the historical inaccuracies don't seem to be any more accurate then his snow can't go upwards comment.
@@jlogan2228yep, history buffs often have low EQ and they are overly pedantic about esoteric details that the average viewer doesn't give a fuck about
@@Captain_Insano_nomercy So did I, but these days loud, and expressive characters are considered the ones with more “personality” to them (I don’t agree, but you hear as much in practically every media video) Especially in say Anime
It was funny to see Mauler get pissed (in his own way) that the cast was not paying attention
He has a slow, cold and calculated way of getting angry lol
I really liked Mauler's asides in this one. Laughing and breaking up the silence with the boys is great, but there are a few subtle things going on in a few scenes that I missed until they were pointed out. It's actually nice to see that even B-tier movies from the early 2000s had good unspoken writing/acting bits that carried character. It's not all garbage, even if the final film is a 6/10 or so.
I'm sorry, I was told not to trust youtube critics anymore. *smugross
This was a B tier movie????
I'm highly skeptical of that.
Agreed.
Such a magical time when decent movies were objectively actually decent movies.
6/10 seems incredibly generous to me......
Mooler REALLY likes this movie and it shows through the editing.
I respect that.
Just because Merlin is in this movie. The wizardtism is strong.
@@sparkypack Stannis was based after all.
Ive been watching every movie before watching those and this was also one of my faves tbh. Pretty flawed, but a fun watch.
The timing of Rags and the medallion thing was gold!
Unlike the medallion.
@@ithewho6603 🥁🥁
I think that's the hardest I've laughed during this arc
"or some precious.... oh..."
The timing is absolutely gorgeous
Easily one the greatest Hans Zimmer scores ever. 0% musical accuracy, but 110% balls to the walls testosterone to make up for it.
If you thought King Arthur's score was already great, just wait for when they cover The Last Samurai in August
*“Remember when movies were good?”*
-Bilbo Baggins
"Nough..."
-Me
Dildough Dabbins
@@lordofthepizzapie9319 Yeah, me neither.
"Remember when movies had dignity?! I DO!" - Gandalf the Gay.
remember the shier D
Mauler’s interjections and edits saved this. Everyone’s funny as always, but seemed like they missed a lot due to the chatter.
Mostly due to Shad screaming about things that often were flat out wrong or up for debate.
@@bobbymarr1297 I think he finds stuff to complain about because he thinks it's his "thing" and he can't just sit and watch quietly. He needs to speak up, regardless of its use in conversation.
I almost left a really dumb reply earlier.
You're absolutely right.
I can't blame them tbh, I was incredibly bored watching it myself.
@@fastenedcarrot9570 DDDDDDD what , where your eyes closed
Shad owes me a new slightly used speaker
lol, I apologise, I think because discord allows people to adjust levels independently no one noticed my mic was so hot on the recording.
He's always that loud. Everyone else is using inside voices; Shad's standard setting is "liquefy".
shad owns my ears now D
@@shadiversity heyyyy he's here sap shadd more love efap movies with you bro
@@shadiversity wrong, it's not your Discord settings, it's because you're obnoxious.
Fun fact, the word Saxophone does indeed derive from "Saxon," as the instrument was named for its designer Adolphe Sax, whose surname denotes him as a distant descendant of members of the ancient Saxon tribe.
Based.
But after whom was the Hitlerphone named?
@@stevealford230Joe Biden I think.
iPhone inventor must have accidentally pressed enter before finishing writing his name
Little known fact the saxophone was used by the Saxons in ancient times as a way to demoralize enemy armies with improvised jazz sessions.
Rip ray Stevenson. His acting was the only good part of Ashoka
Was it, though? He's got a strong natural voice, but apart from that I didn't see anything to commend his his wooden and horribly-directed performance.
@@jroggs85 he did his best
it was pretty amusing that he understood his character better than the writers and showrunners, and made him so much better than he would have been.
Haydens saber skills were great to see again
As a King Arthur adaptation, I appreciate how this film went back to the character's historical basis, with Arthur being a Romano-British warrior fighting the Anglo-Saxons in Post Roman Britain.
A few fun facts:
The Sarmatians were a nomadic people whose origins can actually be traced to Iran. They inhabited the Eastern European steppe. The whole "Rus" thing is a reference to them living in what would later be Russia.
Even though rus was the name given to the norsemen by the slavs . Love historical nonesense in movies . Don't why they try just make it fantasy
The nobility of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth claimed descent from the Sarmatians, though that may be on par with the Romans claiming descent from Trojan refugees. Though it is a using that the movie is positing that the Knights of the Round Table were proto-Polish.
@@anthonykeane4984 Because there were Vikings in Russia. They conquered and occupied Kiev and points even farther east. They didn't refer to all Vikings as Rus: just the Rus Vikings who lived there for generations of occupation and rule over parts of Russia.
Ah so we hate them!
There was a Sarmatian tribe called the Roxolani, I think Bors shouting “Rus!” eludes to it.
1:16:23
Arthur - "What do your elf eyes see?"
Tristan - "A snitch"
"Quick, get someone from Hogwarts to chase it!"
Love mauler is like, so this is my channel and here's why the boys are wrong in his typical expert analysis. 😂
Atheist pagans displaying Christian morality is almost as good as a king declaring everyone is free and equal
All these movies with ancient and medieval strongmen fighting for "freedom" is so stupid. Fuck, and we haven't even gotten to Braveheart yet.
@@jroggs85 "FREEDOM!!!"
"Shut up peasant!"
If Master and Commander isn’t on this list I’m leaving
The list is out, its the trailer from the end of last year😉
Maybe for War Arc TWO!
It's definitely a film they need to do. Especially now that MauLer has started watching Star Trek. Master and Commander is one of the best Star Trek movies.
"Master and Commander" is an excellent Chase movie like "The Hunt for Red October"; Slower than "Bullet" or "Duel", "Mad Max". This Movie Arc type would be interresting to explore.
It ain’t. Lol
I love this movie so much...despite all its mistakes and inaccuracies...my number one guilty pleasure. Plus Mads Mikkelsen is so cool!
Not a shock that Shad missed any subtle moments while watching the film. Thanks Mauler for cutting in during the edit.
Too busy yelling into his three dollar microphone about how the movie wasn’t accurate every five seconds.
Literally everybody missed it, hence why MauLer said he only noticed while editing......
@lukew6725 yeah, but everybody missed it mostly because Shad was sperging out... that and they were all probably half deaf after his first couple.
Yeah he was fucking insufferable in this one.
But he made the very deep and insightful comment about how acting is based on how much you move your head when speaking. It's really helped me in my critical analysis of media.
Skarsgård's character decided to burn the city instead of living in it so he doesn't have to listen to people making jokes about having a "Sax dungeon".
Wakka wakka
*honk honk
I'm shocked that Sargon didn't notice the villain literally says "I wouldn't even grape you."
dammnnnn
7:15 - Shad is technically correct both the term 'Knights' and the term 'Equites' had their own significant social connotations in their respective periods... BUT the terms are and have been used interchangeably in translations for centuries.
A lot of history nerds can't help but be pedantic, I went to school for history and I saw a lot of these people
No, Shad is dead wrong. The Roman equites' social standing was exactly the same as medieval knights. They were nobles, the title was hereditary and they were just below the senate. Later, when the legions got bigger the equites in the legions saw their role reduced to officers. But it was still a noble caste of professional warriors trained to fight on horse back, with roles of leadership, so... Exactly like medieval knights.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equites
Yeah the term "knight" or "knave" is specific to English, but most other languages just translate it to a variation of "horseman", like the french "chevalier" which is the direct meaning of "equites"
Another idea is to do a Camelot Marathon with films like First Knight, The Sword In The Stone, Quest For Camelot, Excalibur (1981), A Kid In King Arthur’s Court, Sword of the Valiant: The Legend of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, The Green Knight (2021), Tristan & Isolde, and so on.
I heartily approve of this plan!
Part of me wants to see that, but another part of me would think they'd eventually start going insane seeing King Arthur stuff over and over, no matter how different they may be.
The Kid Who Would Be King from 2019😂
@@spacevagabond4017 same can be said with any EFAP Movies marathon.
What about The Last Legion?
Could you turn Shad down a little? It's hard to hear the rest of you when adjusting his screaming.
Shad was just a bit much here
he was a bit "excessive" true , much better in other efap-movies , the hole pannel was off , so funny
The guys actually nit picked this one to death, I’m sure they were tired or drunk but yeah this is definitely not the worst of the arc. Glad mauler actually pushed back on the quality of the film
I feel like it was mostly Shad with the other guys not even hearing the movie over him. Rags seemed so lost.
It's a cheesily bad action movie by early 2000s holiday standards... which is decent and watchable by today's standards.
@@hariman7727it's above average by today's standard imo
yesssss like where was that much niting in "kindom of heven" rags wasn't even watching DDDDDD great efap movie though
It's not scripted so I think ppl just get carried away, esp when they are riffing
Shad seems to be actively trying to dislike the film
that was the whole panel except mauler DDDDDD
No he thinks it's efap so you look for plot holes etc not realizing that this is fckin fiction without standing lore to be broken
Shad is not an expert on acting, and his constant critique on Clive Owen is almost as obnoxious as his peaking the mic. Not everyone starts screaming when they get a little emotional or have to share their opinions.
He's not an expert on a lot things, and yet the shouting continues.
yesssss
Shad's yelling and bad audio quality are slowly but surely giving me an aneurysm.
I like to imagine he just sounds like that, even in person.
Yeah, I genuinely had to sit with my finger on the volume button 😂😂😂
Shad is always the annoying one in any video I see him feels like any video with him would be ten times better without him
Shad is enough of a reason to have an aneurysm at all times.
I'm Australian; our Internet is trash, so please bear with him.
Glorious panel but damn Shad's mic is still peaking from Musketeers 😢
Pretty sure it's been bad since 300. Combine that with his annoying voice, shouting, and pathological aversion to saying anything insightful and things get even worse.
I love Shad going full snow expert. Has he even actually seen/experienced snow?
They have snow in Australia but only in high elevations.
Ice fishing with Shad! Now on Hulu!!
He probably never has, actually.
And it does depend on the wind conditions and the consistency of the snow. Very fluffy snow will drift with wind currents like that.
Shads a charlatan. I'm an actual historian, graduated college and everything. Listening to his commentary and watching his videos is painful. Dude spits straight BS.
We got a short-man mauler video right in the 3rd quarter 😆
made it 3 times better too
I never realized Ser Alliser Thorne was in this movie. 10/10
No love for Stannis the mannis?
"I did" - grumpy uncle Alliser
As a nice guy too! He played him well.
@@jonbaxter2254 I know it was so weird to see him smiling and not saying “bastard” every few minutes lol.
Ser Alliser, Stannis the Mannis, and I'm quite certain one of the knights in this is the guy who plays the Lannister twins in House of the Dragon.
I'm so fucking fed up by Shad.
The stirrup historical inaccuracy is indeed a thing, but saying it's as bad as "Henry VIIIth having a mobile phone" is a very disingenuous take. Human civilization has been exponential; a 500 year leap at the start of A.D. is not the same as the 500 year leap to present-day, in terms of inventions and progress. The knights having stirrups here just means, they're safer riding their horses. Name me one Arthurian legend that changes significantly by the knights having stirrups. Meanwhile if you introduced a mobile phone to one of Shakespeare's stories, it definitely changes; half of his stuff is about characters not getting information accurately/fast enough.
stirrups massively improve the ability to control a horse. the final battle of the movie would be impossible without stirrups. i would have to go through the legends again to check those (but most of the legends are not based on the reality of the real arthur but set in high-late medieval period so are not the best example to look to). the movie does change the story if they don't have stirrups.
God damn Shad, say something without screaming.
impossible he has to be loud to appear relevant
@@grapplingberger I was about to say this too
WHAT DID YOU SAY, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU?
@@shadiversity That you’re utterly unbearable, I believe.
@@shadiversityDont worry Shad I still love you
I am going to watch the fuck out of this later.
I don’t want to be interrupted and have to stop for this treasure of a King Arthur movie.
Freedom! Ok, now I'm your king, so you don't own your land and you all work for me.
I'm being repressed!
yesh me lord..
redditor logic ,yuck DDD
^.-.^ I will say, despite the inaccuracies, I do like this film. Especially a lot of the dialogue moments and camaraderie between the characters, and the villain you just canae help but enjoy. I like it.
Everyone is different. Some people watch movies and follow what the story and characters are doing. Others prefer to talk so much about stirrups and saddles that they have no clue what’s going on the entire time.
Mauler sold me on this being better than 300 lol
Equites is often translated as knights in English.
Really? When? Every history book I've ever read uses the original term, barring maybe describing them as Rome's version of knights when introducing it.
@@Pink.andahalf Equites where the proto knights. The were cavalrymen that later became a social class. I've always heard them referred to as Roman Knights if not Equites.
Infact logically speaking the whole system of knighthood stemmed from the Rome. Having a horse didn't make you a knight until Rome gave you that title. Often given to the sons of captured peoples in order to educate them in roman ways and indoctrinate them.
I remember watching this in theaters. Twice (second time was with a friend). I still remember lines and scenes from this movie as the writing and portrayal of the characters, while not stellar, sounded like they had effort put into to it.
Rewatching this kinda crystallized why I hate the newer stuff that comes out. Films from this era at least TRIED to be good entertainment and become classics. And they would fail because the people behind it just weren’t good enough, didn’t have enough budget/time, and/or production issues. And even the bad movies are at least entertaining or memorable in some way.
Compared to “movies” nowadays where you have terrible people who don’t know what they are doing, have access to TOO much money, have no deadline to finish it, and just want to create what are essentially RUclips Life Blogs.
Scythians, Hungarians and Sarmatians used stirrups and existed even before Christ, so it is not that unexplainable that they have, especially because of the Sarmatian connection.
Yeah when Shad was criticizing their existence at this time period I had to doubt my own knowledge, since my recollection was the Sarmatians had stirrups since like almost as far back as Alexander the Great.
@@CrustlessKing yeah if he meant that Romans usually didnt have stirrups he would've been right. But again Romans fighting next to Sarmatians could easily adopt it considering how beneficial it was for cavalry warfare, even in Roman age (although somewhat later) when eastern nation (with stirrups) like Huns, Avars and Hugnarians attacked the Romans
@@CrustlessKing I can't stand Shad because all he seems to do is state his opinion as if it was historical fact. I'm no expert on history, but a lot of what he says seems debatable.
@@bobbymarr1297 I mean, the guy certainly knows a lot of facts about the late middle ages in western Europe, but he himself has said before that his area of focus is pretty narrow, so he doesn't know as much about other periods and regions, and occasionally makes mistakes. When you're being invited on a panel and asked about a lot of information tangential to your expertise but just outside your grasp of certainty, I can see feeling like you want to still offer insight to contribute to the discussion even if you risk getting some details wrong. I often reference cool historical trivia in conversations with friends and family but have to disclaim at the end how I could be totally misremembering and giving a really bad account but whatever, history has lots of inconsistencies and gray areas anyway. Shad should maybe say something like that more often, but it's not a huge deal unless you're expecting him to be an expert on literally all of history.
@@CrustlessKing see if he'd said things like "hmm I don't think they'd have access to stirrups at this point." That's totally fine that he got it wrong he just stated his thoughts. It's the fact he's screaming it over and over to the point no one can follow the movie that's the issue. He's not leaving room for interpretation, admitting he could be wrong or even stating his displeasure once. He's making it so people like rags don't even know what's going on in the movie by constantly screaming his opinions.
"Who is this Arthur?"
"It is said he has never been defeated in battle. No man can defeat him. No weapon forged-"
"Very well, send Eowyn with Xander's rocket launcher."
Have enjoyed all of these so much. Thanks for all the time and effort putting them together.
Shad is right about Hornblower, dont sleep on Horatio guys
Its ⛰️ 🔥
(No seriously, its fantastic though)
@@ToriHiragana it's mountain flame!
I wish Shad would stop clipping his mic
I wish he would stop showing up
@@alexanderrique579I like him.
He is really lowd and scratchy though...
@@alexanderrique579 this would be heaven and would make this videos 10 times better i always have to skip the püarts when he talks because he is just annyoing
@@grapplingberger I do that basically everytime I see him as a guest
Show me on the doll where shad hurt you?
Can Beowulf be part of the war arc ??
Hearing Ray winston so much ...and also introduce a naked fight to the war Arc
Not a bad movie, and it’s pretty consistent with itself. If it weren’t for the intro card saying it’s historical, I’d almost call it a pretty good movie.
The excellent series, "Robin of Sherwood" introduced Nasir-- a Saracen two sword fighter--and that's been a trope ever since. Nasir is still the best version.
Shad needs to turn his mic down... Or step back 19 feet.
Or just not show up that would be better
Or just shut the hell up about yelling how in accurate everything is every five minutes, that would be great.
Do not ever suggest people back up from their mics. People need to be right up on their mics and, for many mics at least, talking past them instead of AT them.
Fringy always sounds like he's shouting at his mic from the next room and he's probably only a short distance from it, but nowhere near short enough. Room echo is much much worse when people are farther from their mics because they're speaking too loudly and the mic's gain also needs to be higher than it would if they were right up on the mic.
But Shad definitely needs to not have imbecillic sperg outs every 5 minutes... or ever... The only credit I'll give him is that he doesn't seem to have the stupid problem Gary, Marc the Cyborg, and Stuttering Craig used to/still do where they feed back what they hear to discord/streamlabs and use echo cancellation to counter that instead of just not causing the problem in the first place. This is why they, and everyone else, sound like they're underwater every time they're involved in any crosstalk, including with their own shared media/soundboard nonsense.
bro, turn down shad
Great little edit explaining and representing the good stuff from the film so that its not just being laughed at xD
Also this movie is making me love Vikings more and more that show is so good and feels accurate to the period not sure but tactics and weapons were very rag tag instead of fancy and cool
This movie came out in 2004, and all the talk of "freedom" really shows that lol.
So.. has Shad ever watched a movie before? He gets so mad 😂
Imagine going to the theater with him...
@@BaldorfBreakdowns I don't want to lol
He seems like the kinda person you bring once then never make that mistake again
Maybe just edit Shad out of the next one if his audio is still bad.
noooooo i mean it was killing me but nooo
Maybe just edit him out regardless
Will you guys be watching The Count of Monte Cristo starring Jim Caviezel?
I loved that movie growing up!
Rewatched it recently and was quite surprised to see the son was played by a much younger Henry Cavil.
@@Jacob-WD40 Whaaaaat? No way, now I gotta rewatch it lol
It's not on the list, but I love that movie!
@@Oetam8566 awww bummer, well maybe they'll get to it one day?
10:22 The appearance of mall ninja weapons in this movie is the only thing that brings me joy in life.
One of the funniest moments in this movie is when the guy says: "come on my other bastards!" and the children, who just met him, all shout "yaaaay!"
The BBC said the Roman Britons were black so this is already inaccurate.😉
I don't care what they tell you in school, King Arthur was black
When I was in college, in my Medieval History class, we watched this movie, and then had to choose a primary and secondary historical source to write a paper to confirm and debunk the various elements of the story.
It mostly checks out.
The gist of this story is mostly accurate. The absurd movie stuff clearly isnt, but there was a Sarmatian Knight named Arturius that was taken from Britain as a child and lead whats left of the company. Bede mentioned several of the knights by the names used in the movie/legend. He did stay behind to protect the Romans fleeing Britian, including the Pope's nephew and the locals as the Saxons invaded. He made a pact with the Picts for their help. Arturius married a chieftains daughter. That battle on the frozen lake happed. Obviously the Battle of Badon Hill, where Sir Robin the Brave personally wet himself, really happened. The political manuvering with the popes and the excommunication of Arthur's mentor happened... though no proof he was actually Arthur's mentor. Its pretty accurate.
The stuff thats not accurate is obviously the dramatic movie stuff, the crazy array of weapons and gear from around the world the knights used. And the Battle of Badon Hill... 12 knights did not hold off the whole Saxon army with bizarre tactics.
And the Saxons would have ran trains on the women, to make more Saxons. It was pretty much standard practice with any invading and occupying forces. The Romans did the same thing.
Some of the inaccuracies are easy for me to gloss over, like the saxon attacking the woman. He stated their laws encouraged it, so it's set up as just the leader's policy that goes against customs. Him just being some crazy extremist is easier to accept. Even the array of weapons if they brought them from their original countries or modeled them after them that seems acceptable to me. And the final battle did have the native britains as well.
@@bobbymarr1297 right, everything 'wrong' isn't so wrong that it makes it absurd.
Its not The Woman King. 🤣
also the saxons were invited to britain as pseudo-federatii and then betrayed the britons. and they did not land north of the wall.
Man, Shad is like the most annoying person to watch a movie with. Jeez. Shut up about the armor and the swords. SHUT UP ABOUT THE ARMOUR AND THE SWORDS SHAD!!!
Yea it's like I don't care if it's "accurate" I want it to look cool for the movie. It's historical FICTION
@@jlogan2228 but it doesn't look cool
I'd be OK if he did a short spiel on it at a reasonable volume and then let it go. Instead he feels he has to talk over everyone constantly to stress that he's the "expert" over and over. He's the kinda guy who gets a post-it note staple-gunned to his head in the army.
lol at Shad sperging out every five minutes.
he literally adds nothing besides fake outrage
You guys should consider watching in the future the 1995 film: *First Knight*
In which Sean Connery plays the role of an elderly King Arthur.
Best King Arthur movie!
Hey I just mentioned that. The only good part is Arthur. Guinevere is okay. Lancelot looks like what he is, a modern American man playing a medieval knight. Almost everyone is outclassed by Connery in that movie, but especially Gere.
@@TheSatisfiedPig The senior henchman to the villain has a perfect intimidator voice. That, King James Bond, and doinky costumes are all I remember from seeing it as a kid.
What's crazy is that, like Kingdom of Heaven, I think this is another movie that's minorly improved by theatrical cut. A handful of things that were cut include:
1) the knocking at Arthur's door when he's with Guinivere, so he doesn't go into battle with blue balls (i.e. what I can only imagine to be a fate worse than death)
2) the Saxons killing their own wounded dude running for his life outside the wall gates; in that version, he falls down halfway to them and you just assume he dies like that
3) the "Woad" girl power moment with Guinivere and friends tag-teaming one random Saxon
What's probably improved by the director's cut though is:
1) that entire scene with young Arthur and Pelagius, to inform his admiration and belief in him
2) the scene where Cerdic (Stellan Skarsgard) demotes Cynric (Til Schweiger) and scars his face, telling the other Saxon. "You're like a son to me," which is perfection. That said, you do lose Cynric killing a random soldier out of daddy anger
3) I'm pretty sure that one conversation with Guinivere and Lancelot, talking about themes. They showed a lot more of his interest in her, along with Arthur's, which is a nice reference to the legendary love triangle
And I'm sure there's a few more examples that are slipping my mind. Them's just what I can remember from watching when I was a youngling
I preferred the director's cut because the theatrical focused more on the love story
The funny part is that Tristan, the “cool-guy”, if I remember correctly was well known for his archery. Dude had a bow named Failnaught. It actually would’ve been pretty cool had his whole shtick been that he wasn’t very good with a sword compared to the others
Fuck yeah...any guesses for Halloween EFAP...I think Paranormal Activity Series!
Id kinda enjoy a "horror classics arc" similar to the war arc watching various cheesy old stuff
Underworld, Child’s Play, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday 13th, Evil Dead or The Purge would be good choices.
Paranormal Activity seems like a pretty solid guess too.
If I’m not mistaken, the franchise for this year is Halloween
My Little Pony, perhaps?
I kinda want a Chucky series
Christ! Shad really brought this video down.
It's what he does unfortunately
@@BumfluffAddlepate y because then u cant easily skip the part where he talks
What did he do wrong here? He seems fine to me and I don't agree with him most of time.
We watched this in school for History class once, no idea why, but at the end the teacher asked me "what did we learn from this then" and I said "Uhh King Arthur was actually a Roman?" and then everyone clapped.
Being real I have no clue why we were watching it at the time, it was so mildly related to Roman stuff and was pretty obviously "iffy" on the historical accuracy front. Most teachers pretty much just sort of immplicily admit watching films is a way to fill time while they do other work or just have a break by making people write up some random bit about parts of it, no idea what this guy wanted me to say about the ending of this.
I didnt even mean it as a joke I was just genuinely confused why he was asking, may as well have been watching star wars for ww2 and then asking people what we learned.
"What did we learn from Star Wars?"
"Uhhh... dogfighting is awesome?"
There wouldn’t have been Papal armies at this point in history. The Pope at this point would have been one of the Patriarchs of the Church and still very much under the authority of the Roman State
Maulers Galahad commentary IS awesome , loved it DDDDDDDD
My fannibal heart got a little emo seeing Hugh and Mads together on screen again 🥹
Also didn’t know Ray Stevenson was in this 💔 rest in peace Baylan Skoll
Stephen Dillane isn't the only GoT actor here, you also have Clive Russell (who played Blackfish) as Lancelot's father, and Owen Teale (who played Alliser Thorne) as Pelagius
They had trebuchets but opened the gates before expending every piece of ammunition for it. Thats like Total War noob mistakes 101.
Took me a second to recognise Clive Russell as Arthurs dad, instantly thought of Thirteenth Warrior.
"Today was a good day!"
Stop inviting shad please!
The last bit of this vid needs to be clipped out for a separate vid to show that you guys don't live in an echo chamber. its good to see stable discourse on a movie. I'm with mauler, great movie.
Yes, Hornblower, but I'll raise you a Sharpe
I’ve been listening to some old open bars and I’m having a blast listening to Mauler, Drinker and others making predictions and being hilariously wrong in some instances as to what shows or movies will be good/bad 😂 but a new movie EFAP is a much welcome production!
This was an interesting one, Shad was his usual loud, moronic self thinking his overly angry bit was funny, Rags straight up just not paying attention and seemingly annoyed to be doing this, and poor Mauler trying desperately for anyone to care, understand and appreciate any of it!
12:00 - According to D&D though, a shield is only worth +2 armor class
This is the first film in the War Arc that I'm not entirely sure if I've seen it before or not, but some scenes were definitely familiar to me so maybe randomly flipping through channels or something I dunno. Anyway, commenting for the algorithm and to support this War Arc even though I have no strong personal opinions about this movie one way or another. Anyway, see you next month, love this series.
I know the film isn't great but I don't think the guys gave it a chance in the second half - it's not hard to follow the characters motivations and plot in this film. There's a lot of "confusion" from them as to what's going on
I'm curious if Rags didn't even hear the dialogue over Shad for how confused he seemed.
@@bobbymarr1297maybe I’m being biased as someone who likes Rags and finds Shad horrendously annoying most of the time, but I can absolutely believe that to have been the case
I can't believe that they had such good cameras back in the day... Anyway, I'm glad they did and captured all of those historical events.
Guinevere gave me more Morgana vibes. I'm surprised no one joked about that.
a round table , now thats what i callEpic BAD luck DDDDD
This movie is ridiculous; knights and anti-Christian pagan Britons in the 5th century. For God's sake, the opening text uses : "Dark Ages" and "historical consensus" in the same paragraph. Historically "accurate" my left nut hahahaha!
Its the story of King Arthur and you expect historical realism?
@@Jack-uy7ie I expect historical accuracy, when the film claims to be the "historically accurate" version of the Arthurian legend, yeah.
@@thomasciuffreda8783 What makes you think conscripted soldiers from Roman territories would be Christian or look favorably upon Rome?
@@bobbymarr1297 Although not completely converted to Christianity by this point, Britain was heavily Christian by the 5th century. If this story took place in like the 2nd or 3rd century, when Britain was a more religiously mixed nation, the animosity would make more sense.
@@thomasciuffreda8783 well they specified at the beginning of the movie that the knights complaining about Christianity were the ones conscripted from other countries as older children.
I don't think anyone shown to be born in Roman controlled Britain was anti Christianity.
I like how excited Shad gets, but something has to be done about his audio situation wether it is through editing or getting him a new mic or getting him further away from the mic/not shouting as much. FYI for anyone who finds themselves talking too loudly when using something like discord, turn your headphone volume down and turn the sound canceling off. People often unconsciously raise their voice to be heard like, for example, if you were in a bar or loud restaurant and your brain doesn't understand that you're actually in a quiet room when your ears are hearing a discord channel of a bunch of people talking plus a movie.
I feel like people's memory of this film is greater than the actual film itself.
Great score, cast and cinematography though.
Arthur: All men are inherently equal under God, and free to choose his own destiny, which is a belief that I hold as a Roman in the 5th century
Also Arthur: Sure, I'll be King lol
I absolutely love this movie despite the issues
I get the feeling Mauler would dominate in Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.
the panel watches "the ring falling into mordor " rags so whats with that ring anyway DDDD laughing my asssss
Nice vid, but shad please get a better mic XD
I genuinely love this movie. It may not be that great, but it’s so nostalgic to me.
I am rewatching the movies before watching the EFAPs and Mauler is 100% right that this is better than 300.
True, though to be fair there are late night infomercials that are better than 300.
@@kingleech16 EFAP Ron Popiel Arc When?
While I certainly agree that this woman could in no way pull back a war bow of all things I would say her struggling to pull back a 30 lb one is unrealistic. As I am an archer and I can pull back a 40 lb bow pretty easily and that was before I could do push-ups. Not a compound bow either recurve hunting bow. Shad is right, but he is underestimating a bit.
I think that issue could have easily been resolved by hiring a more athletic actress. If they'd hired someone with more muscle it'd be more believable she was a warrior.
Great EFAP. We could use more of these silly episodes.
I feel like this was the worst EFAP Movies and Mauler recognized it and tried to save it through edits. Shad wouldn't shut up the whole time with takes that were often inaccurate or debatable, which he states with such confidence/arrogance. It felt like Rags didn't even see the movie, maybe because he couldn't hear it over Shad, because he was constantly complaining about things that were explained. I thought maybe I just felt annoyed because I really like this movie, but my wife hadn't seen it and had never heard of Shad and was screaming shut up at the tv and Mauler seemed to be getting really annoyed by their (generally Shad, Rags and Sargon)'s inaccurate takes.
Unfortunately it's what happens when you have a bunch of history buffs trying to watch a movie. It becomes a dick measuring contest of who knows more and it's like guys just shut up and enjoy the movie for the damn story. Like we get it it's not historically accurate. No shit
@@jlogan2228 One history buff and one armchair expert who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground on anything outside his very narrow focus of study, much of which is laden with BS.
Except the movie literally starts by claiming itself to be the true historically accurate account... they are completely right to make fun of it for being such a self-righteous clown show. (Shad definitely could have been calmer though)
@@lordvarrax5060 it doesn't say it's a biopic or anything it says that evidence showed Arthur may be based on a historical person as opposed to pure fiction. Not this is what his life was like exactly. And a lot of the historical inaccuracies don't seem to be any more accurate then his snow can't go upwards comment.
@@jlogan2228yep, history buffs often have low EQ and they are overly pedantic about esoteric details that the average viewer doesn't give a fuck about
That villain guy speaking softly makes me think of Roose Bolton
Even as a kid I appreciated the novelty of a villain who was quiet and composed, as opposed to a screaming, bellowing barbarian
@@Captain_Insano_nomercy
So did I, but these days loud, and expressive characters are considered the ones with more “personality” to them (I don’t agree, but you hear as much in practically every media video)
Especially in say Anime