free counter with statistics 1066 Movie | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

eric_bana_98.jpg
Are You Smarter than an 11th Grader?

Do You Remember What Happened in 1066? / Dustin Rowles

Trade News | January 30, 2009 | Comments (71)

Anybody that studied more than three days of European history in high school probably knows at least one date. 1066. Battle of Hastings. The date and the war were hammered into my brain for an entire week of AP European history, and while I remember the date, until this movie surfaced, I couldn’t for the life of me remember who the Battle of Hastings was between, or what it was all about (although, it does trigger another date: 1215. Magna Carta. King John. That’s all I remember. I’m sure it has some great historic significance).

Anyway, the Battle of Hastings — as Wikipedia reminds me — was between the Norman’s William the Conqueror and the Anglo-Saxon’s Harold Godwinson. The Normans, of course, wiped the floor with the Anglo-Saxons, and took over Great Britain, and that, folks, is why the Anglo-Saxon swear word, bollocks, is the eighth most severe profanity in England (between prick and arsehole), and why you can’t say it on broadcast television over there before 9 p.m. True story.

So, where were we? Ah yes: Someone has decided to make a movie about the Battle of Hastings called, conveniently, 1066. William Nicholson, who co-wrote Gladiator, which is one of the dullest, dumbest Best Picture winners in Oscar history, will pen the screenplay. The movie will focus on the friendship between William and Harold, and their eventual rivalry, which led to Harold getting an arrow in the eye (also: True story).

I hate epics. Undoubtedly, they’ll trot out all the actors you’d expect to be in epics: Orlando Bloom, Eric Bana, Gerard Butler, and they’ll probably throw in a love interest of some sort, although there was none to speak of in the actual history. But Diane Kruger needs work, you know. No director and no cast has been set yet.


← Predator Reboot | Trust Me Review →



Comments

If they're going to let Eric Bana wander about without a shirt then I'm in.

Posted by: catag at January 30, 2009 10:34 AM

I suppose we should be happy that this movie is based on something older than New Kids on the Block. And that there are usually a lot of muscle-having mens fighting each other, all sweaty and wrestling, or poking at each other with their swords in these types of movies. My imagination is making this seem better and better...

Posted by: Dangle McGee at January 30, 2009 10:37 AM

I am feeling verrry sleeeepy.

Posted by: Cindy at January 30, 2009 10:37 AM

You're right on, by the way. 1066 and 1215 are the only dates I remember from high school history. I couldn't even tell you when the revolutionary war ended, or the civil war began, but god dammit, I know when they signed the magna carta!

PS - This movie sounds like a pile.

Posted by: Marra at January 30, 2009 10:43 AM

A sprawling, character driven epic about the Battle of Hastings? Sounds....

*snore*

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

*jerks awake*

Wait, what were we talking about? I slipped into a boredom nap.

Posted by: stardust savant at January 30, 2009 10:44 AM

If I remember my history correctly, there was lots of marching for weeks in bad weather, and then being too tired and starved to fight. Die.

I suspect the script will look somthing like this.

Soldier: "Sire, the men are too tired and hungry to march anymore. They've been marching for weeks."

King: "We must meet William on the Battle Field. Legolas, get them up!"

Posted by: BWeaves at January 30, 2009 10:44 AM

And that there are usually a lot of muscle-having mens fighting each other, all sweaty and wrestling, or poking at each other with their swords in these types of movies. My imagination is making this seem better and better...

Your imagination... I would like to subscribe to it.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at January 30, 2009 10:47 AM

One would believe that European history is the only history that counts when in fact the European was crawling around on his knees eating dirt while the African was studying Astronomy.

Posted by: Pookie at January 30, 2009 10:53 AM

"older than New Kids on the Block"

There's still a 50% chance of Donny.

Posted by: Bucko at January 30, 2009 10:54 AM

I'm a little ashamed of myself. I like history, but when I saw the date 1066, all I thought of was the Magna Carta. Whatever, dates are for losers.

Posted by: Sabrina at January 30, 2009 10:58 AM

I'm now weeping into my cheerios.

There's no way I'll even be able to watch this, because historically, it will be tripe, and I can't do it. I just can't. I know too much. Next thing you know, they'll be making a movie about Simon de Montfort, and shitting all over the last of my heroes.

Just reboot Becket and give me that long awaited embolism.

Posted by: Smokin at January 30, 2009 10:58 AM

Yeah I just went through a two-week marathon run of Assassin's Creed so I'm kind of up on even semi-historical face-bashing. As long as it isn't Troy bad, I can roll.

So when are we going to get a Taken review? Two solid hours of righteous asskicking. I've been waiting for this for way too long.

Posted by: twig at January 30, 2009 11:02 AM

Fuck that Dustin. The Lord of the Rings movies deserved there Oscars. Fuck Mistic River, for once the academy got things right. Braveheart is still stupid.

Posted by: George at January 30, 2009 11:03 AM

Wait, will someone give the St. Crispin's Day speech? Cause that rocks.

"...and hold their manhoods cheap...."

yeah, that's some good writin' there.....

Posted by: dammitjanet at January 30, 2009 11:10 AM

Speaking of holding one's "Manhood," I try to get my old lady to hold mine daily.

Posted by: Pookie at January 30, 2009 11:13 AM

George, Braveheart may be stupid but at least the Academy knows the proper use of "there" "their" and "they're".

Posted by: The_wakeful at January 30, 2009 11:14 AM

George, Braveheart may be stupid but at least the Academy knows the proper use of "there" "their" and "they're".

Posted by: The_wakeful

And how to spell "Mystic"

Posted by: Groundloop at January 30, 2009 11:36 AM

The only way this can possibly succeed is if Nicholson pulls Rodriguez on board and somehow the Predator(s) winds up dishing out shitloads of Rated-NC17 assbeatery. GOD THAT'D BE SUHWEET! IT'D BE GODDAM AWESO...

Oop. Gotta change my knickers...

Posted by: Skitz at January 30, 2009 11:37 AM

Wait, it's not a remake or a reboot? Fuck that shit, it will never get made.

Posted by: ed newman at January 30, 2009 11:46 AM

NERD

dammitjanet: The St Crispin's Day speech was at Agincourt, a different battle between the French and the English, and one in which the English won. And it is a damn fine speech: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers..."

At Hastings, in 1066, the French (well, the Normans. But you know: from the now-French side of the Channel) won.

/NERD

Posted by: Neon at January 30, 2009 11:49 AM

George you aren't alone, I make mistakes all the time. I guess we are the only ones.

Posted by: Pookie at January 30, 2009 12:01 PM

Additionally extra-nerdy thought from your Friendly Neighborhood American in France Who Usually Only Lurks ...

IF you do sort of like history and shit ...

AND IF you're coming to France either not for the first time, or long enough to do something other than visit only Paris ...

THEN you would probably enjoy a trip to Bayeux, a small city in northwest France where they have the Bayeux Tapistry.

Which sounds dull but is actually kind of cool: It's like a 70 yard long medieval graphic novel made from embroidery.

It tells the story of the Battle of Hastings. And the little museum that houses it has a pretty well-done audiotour that describes everything on it. Even the naughty illustrations in the margins, and the passage of Halley's Comet (yes the Halley's Comet) right during the middle of everything.

Posted by: Neon at January 30, 2009 12:02 PM

Okay, I can't believe I'm going there, but...Harold had a (allegedly) beautiful mistress named Edith Swan-neck and a wife but I forget her name and apparently they were both pregnant when he was killed or (if you prefer) one of them was and the baby(ies) was(were) born posthumously...so there's your tragic, epic,romance AND a role for Diane.

Posted by: dawn at January 30, 2009 12:10 PM

UBERNERD*

Actually, the thing about Harold getting an arrow in the eye may be a misinterpretation of the Bayeaux Tapestry. Nobody really knows if that figure is Harold, or if Harold is actually another guy who gets killed with a sword in another part of the work. And the arrow may be a (relatively) recent addition, as it's not present in 1729 engravings of the Tapestry.

So if they put that in the movie, we can assume that their research was shite....

/UBERNERD

*thanks for the fauxtml tag, Neon.... ;-)

Posted by: tarn at January 30, 2009 12:12 PM

Don't feel bad, Sabrina. I saw the year 1066 and thought, is that the year Hannibal crossed the Himalayas on elephants? I passed all my history courses, but clearly I used my short-term photographic memory to get by, because I do not remember much of anything outside US history. And that's mainly from seeing movies and tv shows about our history.

Posted by: Melissa at January 30, 2009 12:15 PM

Oooh, Neon, that does sound cool. Too bad I've already been to France and probably won't get to go again until I die and my body is scattered from the top of the Eiffel Tower, raining bloody chunks of flesh and terror upon the populace.

Posted by: Sabrina at January 30, 2009 12:16 PM

About halfway through these posts, I thought I was gonna have to post a "You people are idiots" comment, but DZAMN, we got some smart, educated people on this site!

Posted by: jimbob at January 30, 2009 12:25 PM

Sabrina, if you ever come back to Paris while you're, you know, still alive, give me a ping first.

tarn, this debate/uncertainty about the arrow is indeed what the audiotour in Bayeax says, too, in front of the appropriate images. Have you ever had the chance to see the Tapistry for real? I love it. It is an official stop on the trademarked Ms Neon and Monsieur HerSpouse's Weekend Away from Paris Tour, on which we take friends and family when they come see us a second time -- a tour which also includes the Normandy D-Day beaches and the very well-done museum about D-Day in Caen, and a stop at Monet's Gardens in Giverny on the way home.

Posted by: Neon at January 30, 2009 12:39 PM

I'm glad someone finally agrees with me on Gladiator. I can't tell if I'm sad for this movie, or happy that someone was paying attention enough in history to know that this stuff actually CAN be cool.

I might watch it, and it not being my area of expertise, I might secretly enjoy it while crying on the outside.

Posted by: Rowen at January 30, 2009 12:42 PM

I love epics. I love cheesy epics. They're a great guilty pleasure and great time wasters when you're home with a cold and all you want to watch is hot men and sword fighting. This is why 'Troy' is such a glorious movie. Sean Bean and Eric Bana together? Yes please.

So, if it has shirtless men and sword fighting, count me right in. I don't care what you think!

Posted by: figgy at January 30, 2009 12:45 PM

NERD

dammitjanet: The St Crispin's Day speech was at Agincourt, a different battle between the French and the English, and one in which the English won. And it is a damn fine speech: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers..."

At Hastings, in 1066, the French (well, the Normans. But you know: from the now-French side of the Channel) won.

/NERD


Posted by: Neon at January 30, 2009 11:49 AM

and I quote one of Andys in "Hot Fuzz"...... I KNOW!
/sarcasm

Posted by: dammitjanet at January 30, 2009 12:45 PM

Battle of Hastings.. yes.. but will the Meddling Monk and missile launchers be involved?

Posted by: Ray at January 30, 2009 12:57 PM

This is why 'Troy' is such a glorious movie.

All the oiled abs in the world could not excuse that movie its stilted dialogue, shoddy workmanship or extremely shitty rushed soundtrack.

No sir, I don't like it.

Posted by: twig at January 30, 2009 12:59 PM

Neon: I think I love you.

As soon as I saw the date, I had one of the verses from Puck's Song from Kipling's Puck of Pook's Hill running through my head:

See you our stilly woods of oak,
And the dread ditch beside?
O that was where the Saxons broke
On the day that Harold died.

Actually, if anyone cared to do it right, I think Puck of Pook's Hill would translate into an awesome movie...

But thinking of The Jungle Book, I think I want to retract that comment.

Posted by: Tyburn Blossom at January 30, 2009 12:59 PM

Y'know what everyone else remembers from history?
Ely Whitney. Cotton Gin.
Yes, I know that's US History, not European History. But still.

Posted by: Blonde Savant at January 30, 2009 1:06 PM

*NERDRANT*

The Bayeux Tapestry was Norman propaganda, much as the Tudors propagandized the murder of child brothers Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, to vilify Richard III...Tudor douchebags. Henry VII did it, we all know he did, and he blamed it on Richard as a means to an end, much as William commissioned the Bayeux to gloss over the irregularities of his claim to the throne.

*END NERDRANT*

Posted by: Smokin at January 30, 2009 1:10 PM

For those of you fond of historical fiction in comic-book form-

Warren Ellis: Crecy.

Posted by: twig at January 30, 2009 1:15 PM

Neon,

I have a (possibly erroneous) memory of having seen the Tapestry as a kid - did it ever go walkabout? (Or maybe some UK museum displayed a photographic replica... that rings a bell...) But I haven't seen it as an adult, so I didn't know about the audiotour. I just knew about the possibly-added-later arrow, and Harold's death being ambiguous, from some reading I've done. I refreshed my memory at Wikipedia. Who probably got their info from the audiotour... ;-)

Anyhow, I'd love to see it (again) someday. And Monet's gardens would be cool, too. All I'd need to do to see them exactly as he did, is take off my glasses!

Posted by: Tarn at January 30, 2009 1:23 PM

Smokin,

That's interesting, I did not know that about the Tapestry. Thanks.

My favourite part of the whole Richard/Henry thing is that Henry VII dated his reign from the day before Bosworth Field - thus making all the nobles who'd fought for Richard 'traitors'. Then he had them executed and confiscated their lands. Definitely the act of a criminal mastermind.
Oh yeah, he killed those kids all right.... that bastard! But the Tower of London tour still has a question-mark over the subject. They do give you both sides of the story and let you vote on it, though.

Posted by: Tarn at January 30, 2009 1:36 PM

Thank you! I hate Gladiator, why doesn't everyone else?

Posted by: Lucas at January 30, 2009 1:57 PM

The real shame is how boring they always end up making history. There are hundreds of stories scattered through the ages, so fucked up, so dramatic, so intelligent, that if you made them into a movie there's half a chance people couldn't suspend disbelief. We're so conditioned to stories being mediocre that when confronted with real history, we're astounded. This affects us even to the point of stripping down the great literature and art.

Read The Gulag Archipelago and then read 1984. The absurdist horrors of true totalitarianism dwarf the picture Orwell painted so well.

Posted by: stipe42 at January 30, 2009 2:50 PM

I saw Gladiator in theaters about five times. I was 17, and it was pretty much the best movie I had ever seen, even though I knew they were basically smearing history all over the place.

It hasn't translated well as I've (slowly) become an adult, but it still holds a solid spot in my heart. It's not as mind-blowing as it once was, but I will always love Gladiator.

Posted by: Snath at January 30, 2009 3:09 PM

How come everyone always picks on me or Pookie for spelling. Shut up! Who cares unless the spelling is truly atrocious. If you wrote this:

LOL bst rvw evah uvr pwnge LOL ROTFL htrs 3pc FAIL!

Then you can complain; but for simple mistakes, shut up! No one cares. Fuck you! Why do we even have three versions of "there" anyway?

Posted by: George at January 30, 2009 4:01 PM

It's because the caliber of the people that visit this site during "business hours" is generally much higher than on other sites, George. We're edumacated and snarky, and spelling errors and other grammatical mistakes make us ashamed (if they're ours), and rageful (if they're not ours). Besides, spare the (verbal) rod, spoil the (interweb) child.

Also, some people are just douchebags.

I'll correct someone's grammar in what I hope is an amusing way if I like the person, but if I don't know them or don't care, I won't say anything. You're awesome, so I might make a joke if I noticed it. the_wakeful is just a dick.

I also fully expect a verbal flogging myself if I make a grammatical mistake. All's fair in grammar love and war.

Posted by: Snath at January 30, 2009 4:21 PM

I will help people to suspect their security.

Posted by: ladyusher at January 30, 2009 4:35 PM

I'm new here and the site was recommended to me by a friend so I'm popping my comment cherry. Anyway, it's nice to know that someone else feels my pain for crap "historical" movies. Although I'm not too knowledgeable on 1066 and the Battle of Hastings I'm sure this movie will horrendously fuck up the details in order to make in more entertaining.

As a history/mythology nerd I was so juiced to see Troy back in college only to be vehemently pissed off at Brad Pitt's suck accent and the complete and utter ruination of Homer's Iliad. Why does Hollywood shutter at the fact of accepting historical fact or classical mythology as wonderful material for drama? Why wander away from the story of the Iliad because it is a badass story about betrayal, vengeance and war. Plus it was all started by some hussy running away with another dude, so there's your love story.

But I digress. I spent enough energy in the car ride home a few years ago after that movie explaining to my friends why it sucked dick because they all thought it was pretty sweet. There were so many things wrong with that movie I won't further go into it. I'll almost certainly see this movie and most certainly be disappointed by its lack of historical backing. I really wish everyone would follow HBO with its John Adams mini-series and either make it exactly as it's supposed to be or just leave it in the fucking books because I'm sick of shit getting left out, important shit.

Posted by: Nolees at January 30, 2009 4:37 PM

Why do we even have three versions of "there" anyway?

Because otherwise there would be confusion for everyone as there words were mistaken for other words there not even saying. So there.

Posted by: stipe42 at January 30, 2009 4:49 PM

"it does trigger another date: 1215. Magna Carta. King John. That's all I remember. I'm sure it has some great historic significance"

Dustin, aren't you a lawyer? Isn't the significance of the Magna Carta and its establishment of the legal principle of habeas corpus, therefore, kind of important to your profession?

Posted by: Armando at January 30, 2009 5:49 PM

"it does trigger another date: 1215. Magna Carta. King John. That's all I remember. I'm sure it has some great historic significance"

Dustin, aren't you a lawyer? Isn't the significance of the Magna Carta and its establishment of the legal principle of habeas corpus, therefore, kind of important to your profession?

Armando: That's probably why I don't practice, nor ever really cared to. And Nolees: Welcome to Pajiba. -- DR

Posted by: Armando at January 30, 2009 5:50 PM

Diane Kruger is hot.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 30, 2009 5:54 PM

Wouldn't watch it. I've only got about trait about myself about which I'm not ashamed: I have an encyclopedic knowledge of English history. Boo and hiss if you want, bubbles. I'm not going to feel embarrassed about knowing things.

Several Tapestry Theories:

No one is entirely sure if the dude with the arrow in the eye is actually Harold Godwinson. It says that Harold is dead, but that statement is spatially close to the lad getting knocked off the horse. The Carmen has something to say about that.

Medieval art is a lot more symbolic. It was common practice to depict a figure twice, so some scholars believe they could both be him. There are writings about Harold having his 'leg' cut, and the dude on the horse has an axe in his leg. But 'leg' is just nice for 'wang', and he would have definitely been castrated.

As far as the arrow in the eye goes, possible, but no one's sure. At this time, it was also common to depict a fallen traitor as having some kind of eye injury.

The Tapestry was almost certainly commissioned by William's half-brother, Odo. That isn't to say that they were huggie-buddies, but they were both Norman, and would've seen Harold's seizing of the crown as pretty sleazy, seeing as how William was convinced that cousin Edward the Confessor meant for him to take the crown. William was of course born out of wedlock, which negated his claim. You wouldn't say that to his face though, because then he'd have your hands and feet cut off. This is NOT a guy who can take a 'Yo Momma' joke.

Anyhoodles, since Harold was a 'traitor', he was depicted as being wounded in the eye, as was the style at the time. The Carmen talks about him having lost a leg, having his 'leg' cut off after death, being gutted, and beheaded. Edith was only able to recognize him by some distinct markings in a private area that didn't end up on the other side of the field.

Those sides were evenly matched. Everyone talks about the Normans making soup of the Anglos, but this shit went down on October 14, Harold had been busy at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 30 September killing his brother, and an opportunistic little so-and-so named Harald Hardraada. He liked killing people. He was one of those 'pure management' types. Today he'd race down the Autobahn with five BlackBerrys, nine mobiles three pagers and a beeper for some reason. So, planning was for little bitches who weren't going to get to be king of England. I'm saying it was a bloody month.

And timing. There was no professional army, so you only take men out for a certain amount of time before you had to let them go home. William knew that, knew about Stamford, knew the already depleted sources would scatter and go home so they could, um, eat food. And knew that it was just the right time of year for there not to be much food to scrounge (Harold's men had just been terrorizing the food away from villages, anyway).

Smart, huh?

Yes, the Normans had horses, uphill 'advantage', and shorter hair (why a professional warrior would grow out his beard and hair is beyond me). But, we'd do well not to underestimate the powers of a professional with a four-fucking-foot-long longaxe. One of those things could easily slice through an armoured man and his horse in one well-placed swoop.

Anyway, anyone who has a problem with this post will just have to endure it whilst I lay the hammer down. I'm having the WORST month, the SHITTIEST day, and I will find a way to lay a pain on you malcontents that'll be indescribable if needs be!

Or, Provisions of Oxford? Ugh, my stupid, stupid life. UGH!

Cthulthu fhatgn!

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at January 30, 2009 6:04 PM

Jo, I do NOT have a problem with you. You are one hot history analyzing Mama. I hope your life gets less shitty right quick!!

You are also right one about the Saxon axes - those things were deadly. And now I re-read your description of William as "pure management" and am imagining him codifying English laws on his Blackberry and introducing French vocabulary into English speech via Twitter.

Thanks for bringing out the nerds with this post, Dustin!! And here I thought I was special for knowing what transpired in 1066. Now I see what I have to aspire to.

Posted by: Empress of All the Russias at January 30, 2009 8:11 PM

The only thing I want to know about the Saxon axes is, does she have a big snatch?

Posted by: Pookie at January 30, 2009 8:24 PM

Thank-you, Empress. I really appreciate that comment. Well, my day's turning around, at least!

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at January 30, 2009 8:54 PM

"Do You Remember What Happened in 1066?"

*without looking*

Battle of Hastings.

Hah! I nailed that one when I was on "Jeopardy!" too.

Posted by: bucdaddy at January 30, 2009 9:09 PM

Battle of Hastings.. yes.. but will the Meddling Monk and missile launchers be involved?

Posted by: Ray at January 30, 2009 12:57 PM

Ray, Only if we're very, very lucky. Or maybe we'll even get the War Chief and co.

Posted by: Camera Obscura at January 30, 2009 9:49 PM

while I remember the date, until this movie surfaced, I couldn't for the life of me remember who the Battle of Hastings was between, or what it was all about

That's the great thing about visiting another country, you realise that all the knowledge and background that you take for granted, the bedrock of your cultural identity, is just some random number for other people. In the UK we grow up on 1066, it's the first history we learn, the last time Britain was invaded (but on the official 'history test to get citizenship' it's a trick question. A: 1940, Gurnsey by the Germans, which doesn't count).
Can you believe that in Germany they don't know what bonfire night is or the significance of 5th November? And a Chinese friend lived in Germany for three years before learning that West Berlin was deep inside East Germany.

Re importance of African Astronomy, see the Stars of the Sahara on New Scientist and Timbuktu on wikipedia. Seems Timbuktu libraries were just as fame-worthy as the library of Alexandra

Posted by: ChrisD at January 31, 2009 10:41 AM

Eric who?

Posted by: admin at January 31, 2009 12:10 PM

Gladiator rocks. I will hear no ill spoken of it.

There was a dream that was Pajiba, Dustin, and this is not it. This is NOT. IT.

Posted by: JohnnyVonAwesome at January 31, 2009 12:20 PM

Soldier: "Sire, the men are too tired and hungry to march anymore. They've been marching for weeks."

King: "We must meet William on the Battle Field. Legolas, get them up!"

Ho boy, you just made me gigglesnort, and that's not easy for me.

Posted by: Jaci at January 31, 2009 1:31 PM

Given I'm currently writing a thesis on the conquest, I wish this had been made two years ago. There really is nothing better after coming home from a day reading original sources on the Crusades, then watching Ridley Scott piss all over them in 'Kingdom of Heaven.'

Posted by: Lizbet at January 31, 2009 2:01 PM

Gladiator kicks arse

just sayin

Posted by: Protoguy at January 31, 2009 3:09 PM

Had William not stood by his feudal right to the English throne (willed to him by Edward) or if Harold had won (which the Saxons might have done), we'd all be speaking an odd dialect of Dutch right now. The Conquest had a shitload of results down the road, not the least of which was creating the English language.

1066 is one of the seminal points in European history, along with 1215. So long as the movie doesn't suck too hard, I might be inclined to spend some money to stimulate the local economy.

Posted by: The Wanderer at January 31, 2009 3:17 PM

Interesting. The one thought that keeps coming to me, in the midst of all our historians weighing in, (I read Churchill's History, BTW), is that no one has seen this movie, since it HAS NOT BEEN MADE YET. They don't even have a director or cast yet!

One of the many benefits of being an old fart, (I'm 61), is that I was around to see this crap before. Back in 1977, Franco Zeferelli made a TV mini-series called "Jesus of Nazareth". The evangelical Christians raised an unholy stink about it, demonstrating and everthing, before the series even aired.

Likewise, back in 1988, they raised the same stink about "The Last Temptation of Christ", without having seen it.

THEY DIDN'T SEE THE PICTURE AND STILL CONDEMNED IT!!!

Sound familiar?

Why can't we just all wait for the movie to come out, and then you can still run it down and have fun getting you hypocrite on without spending the serious coin to buy a ticket.

Posted by: Ralphie at January 31, 2009 11:29 PM

Predictive scathingness is more fun, Ralphie...way more fun.

Posted by: Smokin at February 1, 2009 11:06 PM

Jo says:

...Harold had been busy at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 30 September killing his brother, and an opportunistic little so-and-so named Harald Hardraada. He liked killing people. He was one of those 'pure management' types.

Was I wrong to read this as saying that Harold liked killing people? The Empress seems to think Jo was referring to William.

Posted by: CatBallou at February 3, 2009 12:20 AM

wow,never thought id live to see this many simple people on one site...way to go!

Posted by: bdkew at February 5, 2009 1:28 PM

wow,never thought id live to see this many simple people on one site...way to go!

Posted by: bdkew at February 5, 2009 1:28 PM

My god are there really such morons in this world?

There are many English people who are very proud of our history and the Battle of Hastings is an event that means a lot to us. PLUS the moron who started this post should check the facts. The stupid movie he is talkking about is called WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR - it promises to be Hollywood made and yes, a load of tripe. The movie called 1066 follows history, will be accurate will be superblty filmed and will be a movie worth watching. No Harold will not be killed by an arrow in the eye. Harold was hacked to pieces by men serving the tyrant William - who had no right to the English throne.

Don't be so limp-brained in judging something till you know more about it.

google for 1066 the movie and find out !

Posted by: AngloSaxon at February 13, 2009 8:10 PM

My god are there really such morons in this world?

There are many English people who are very proud of our history and the Battle of Hastings is an event that means a lot to us. PLUS the moron who started this post should check the facts. The stupid movie he is talkking about is called WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR - it promises to be Hollywood made and yes, a load of tripe. The movie called 1066 follows history, will be accurate will be superblty filmed and will be a movie worth watching. No Harold will not be killed by an arrow in the eye. Harold was hacked to pieces by men serving the tyrant William - who had no right to the English throne.

Don't be so limp-brained in judging something till you know more about it.

google for 1066 the movie and find out !

Posted by: AngloSaxon at February 13, 2009 8:10 PM

For the real movie on 1066 without the usual suspects go to:

http://1066themovie.biz

Posted by: Lance at February 24, 2009 4:33 AM