The Spaceman and King Arthur

I was in the second grade when this came out. I remember seeing the commercials/trailers and hoping to see it as I was into Disney movies and and science fiction. It never happened.

Fast forward decades later and I finally see it on Disney+, I was not impressed.

Yeah, yeah, one could say I saw it through adult eyes and took the film too seriously, not even close.

It was not written very well. Again, I love SciFi and time travel stories are at the top of my faves, but this wasn't anything special.

Very good premise of a present day astronaut traveling back in time to King Arthur's court, but how they executed it left little to be desired.

I get it that it was supposed to be funny, but even comedies need good writing.

Even as a kid, I was able to pick up on well written work on TV and the big screen. I would not have been able to appreciate this movie if I saw it as the kid who always wanted to see it at the time.

This movie was a good idea that turned out lukewarm.

This movie certainly has its moments. It's quirky and weird, with some truly original scenes, which is what makes it intriguing. Unfortunately, that is the only thing that is good about it, and it's not enough to keep it entertaining for its entire runtime.

Those little bits of weirdness might work better in a short film, but ultimately I was bored with this feature very quickly. The acting is bad and the goofiness of the whole thing gets annoying after a few minutes. Do not recommend.

Based on the ratings and reviews, this movie seems to have a problem with expectation management. It's a Disney movie, but its production standards aren't as uniformly high as one might expect. Apparently they had to cut some corners. This film came out 2 years after La guerra de las galaxias (1977), but its special effects aren't far above Viaje a las estrellas (1966) in quality. Also there is something odd about the plot that suggests late changes. (Someone just disappears, suggesting that he died, and is never mourned.)

Some reviewers complain about a lack of realism. I think they are really missing the point. This kind of movie doesn't have to be realistic. The original novel is basically an extended joke, and so is this film. What matters is whether it is a good joke and whether it follows the internal logic of fiction. On these accounts its actually a really good movie.

LONG DIGRESSION ON LANGUAGE

In his novel A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court, Mark Twain dates King Arthur (who likely wasn't a historical person) in the 6th century, and so does this film, which is very loosely based on the book. To get an idea of how long ago that was:

What we think of as England today wasn't a country yet but a region consisting of many small countries. The Romans had left in the early 5th century, and Anglo-Saxons from the North Sea coast of Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands were coming to England, bringing with them the Germanic dialects that would soon develop into Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon). But at the time of the film's setting we don't even call that language Old English yet because that name is preserved for the earliest form preserved in writing. It wasn't before the following century, the 7th century, that England became mostly Christian and the earliest preserved texts in Old English were written.

Here is what the Lord's Prayer looked like in 995, over 400 years AFTER the supposed time of King Arthur:

Fæder uure / þuu þee eart on heofonum / Sii þiin nama gehaalgod / Too becume þiin rice / Gewurþe þiin willa / On erðon swaa swaa on heofonum / ...

Mark Twain would have had a hard time writing in this language, and his readers wouldn't have understood him. Even Middle English was too antiquated for his purposes. Here is the same text in a Middle English version from 1389:

Oure fadir / That art in hevenes / Halwid be thi name / Thi kingdom come to / Be thi wille don / On erthe as in hevenes / ...

Much better, but still too antiquated. So Mark Twain used the English of Shakespeare and the original King James Bible: Early Modern English. And so do most film adaptations. Only, they almost invariably get the grammar wrong. Which is very jarring to speakers of other Germanic languages, who tend to have a better feel for Early Modern English grammar than most native English speakers. Anyway, here is a correct version from 1611 in Early Modern English, taken from the King James Bible:

Our father which art in heauen, / hallowed be thy name / Thy kingdome come. / Thy will be done, / in earth, as it is in heauen. / ...

I am glad that this film generally doesn't even try to use Early Modern English in the dialogs, leaving only a few instances of the usual wrong grammar and making the dialogs flow better.

END OF DIGRESSION.

Of course the time travel aspect (and in fact also the space travel aspect) isn't realistic either. And doesn't have to be. All that matters is that it follows its own internal logic. Which it does.

The film's plot makes good use of the idea of an astronaut arriving at King Arthur's court rather than a distant planet. Unfortunately it overdoes the special effects, which are not its strength, and doesn't make as much use of its excellent actors as it could have done. But overall it's great fun if you are prepared to be entertained.

This is one of those films that starts with a bad title and only gets worse.

If I recall, I saw this at my friend Kirk's tenth birthday party and it was the first time I used the word 'dreck' in a sentence.

'Unidentified Flying Oddball' has all the appearance of having been written and filmed over a long weekend. Edited in someone's basement one night over a keg of beer.

One thing sticks in my memory like an oak splinter: the way Spaceman Tom never called King Arthur 'your majesty' or 'sire,' but instead just plain ol' good ol' 'King.' As in 'hey, King, get yer hands offa my girl, see.' If you like that sort of talk, and your brain development arrested in grade three, then the team behind 'Unidentified Flying Oddball' wants you.

The science was excellent, however. I know now that if I ever need to defend myself from a deathly laser beam, I need only wear the shiniest armour I can find ('Say, King, gimme yer armor! Now don't get all persnickety on me, see? I'll give it back all nice and proper-like, and polished up with good ol' American spit shine').

Disney produced this matted ass-hair sandwich in the days before they became the media Godzilla they are now. Their stock was leaning into the toilet in those days and, hey, so will you after seeing this film.

Incoherent plot, humourless gags, crummy special effects, poor sets. It's not a good kid's film. Not a good film, even though based on a Mark Twain story. But I may change my tune. Perhaps someday I'll see this movie the way I presume it was meant to be seen. On crack.

I remember first seeing this film when it first came out and again in the early 80's as a special film showing at the elementary school I attended. While I agree with the "Suprise it's crap after all" comment that this was not Disney's best movie, I disagree that it was not an entertaining film for a child as I was one when I saw this. First at age 9 and a few years later I still enjoyed it.

I did find it amusing that the title changed a few times and even recall part of the original trailer song. It went something like..."The Unidentified Flying Oddball, it's undeniably oddball, he's the wrongway astronaut that traveled back to Camelot, lasers flash...." I cannot recall the rest perhaps someone can help there. It was very hokey sounding but hey, this film wasn't meant to be serious, just good old fun. I recommend it as a rental.