Posts: 5,739 Location: Wichita, Kansas
Tue 04 Jan, 2005 9:15 am
Quote: |
As one of the disenfranchised and misunderstood religious minorities, I am beginning to have worries about the direction that this thread is taking. |
Please lighten up Lloyd and reference the winking smiley face. My intent was not to cast a cloud over anyones religion or beliefs. My point is that Hollywood simply can't focus on the entertainment aspects of a project. Someone always has to be picked on or persecuted. We can't simply portray history as it happened, but instead insist on re-interpreting it through modern sensibilities.
Quote: |
Could we keep our discussions here on a "less volatile" level? |
I think that's a bit extreme but I do agree with you in spirit.
People,
My intent was to give attention to an upcoming movie that features neat stuff, like swords and armour. My intent was not to begin a geo-political roundtable discussion on the events of the past or the modern interpretation of those events. Most of this discussion hasn't had anything to do with the A&A aspect of this upcoming project, as such it is rapidly losing it's value. Discuss the arms, discuss the armor. Leave the political and religious talk for another time and place because it doesn't bring anything to this discussion.
Let's *all* get this thread on the proper track.
Last edited by Patrick Kelly on Tue 04 Jan, 2005 1:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posts: 342 Location: Simmesport, LA
Tue 04 Jan, 2005 10:24 am
Arms and Armor
From what I have seen of the production photos and the trailer the A&A looks pretty good, though the handles on the swords seem to be a bit longer than those typical for the 12th century. The brief scene of the Muslim calvery opening up to let the Crusaders pass thorugh , then encircling them in the rear seems spot on. From Bloom's pic the armor seems correct with mail hauberk (even with the mittens, which you don't see very often) and chauces. The sword he is holding seems a bit out of place with the blade looking like a type XVI adn the cross seems a little thick. However, I am not sure if Type XVI blades were not around during the 1180's.
Joel
Attachment: 65.49 KB
Last edited by Joel Whitmore on Tue 04 Jan, 2005 12:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posts: 438 Location: Canada
Tue 04 Jan, 2005 12:08 pm
Joel,
I see what you mean-- the first thing that pops to mind when looking at the sword is "14th or 15th c". But I could easily be wrong.
David
Posts: 416 Location: Podgorje, Kamnik, Slovenia, Europe
Tue 04 Jan, 2005 12:36 pm
Yup, you can see similar sort of blade in a "Swords of a Viking Age", a bit earlier than the events portrayed here. Sorry, I don't have the book by me, so I can't give you any details.
Posts: 427 Location: Crown Point, IN
Tue 04 Jan, 2005 12:38 pm
Gabriel Stevens wrote: |
I'm perfectly willing to let Scott abuse history as long as the movie is well done and entertaining. I'm just curious how all this is going to be distorted so that the muslims need defending as it says in the article Alina linked to. Historically didn't Saladin pretty much show up and Orlando's charater handle the negotiations for surrender of the city? |
I wish I felt the same way. I'm of the opinion that history is very interesting by itself. It still amazes me hollywood's penchant for changing history to make it more interesting or viewer friendly. I mean, armies that really walked the earth and events that really happened, how can that not be interesting? Another thing I noticed (of course I'm a nerd about this stuff) was the incorrect helms, swords etc. Isn't the context of this film the first crusade? They have mixed helms and equipment that predate the first crusade by several hundred years, and then placed sword in the hands of guys that were typical several hundred years after the first crusade. Very strange. I guess to an uninformed audience weapons over the span of 400 years is no big deal as long as they look "neat." I, on the other hand, go nuts when I see this crap. It reminds me of Simon Atherton's "night arrows" in Timeline...oh right, give me a break!
Posts: 493
Tue 04 Jan, 2005 12:59 pm
Eric McHugh wrote: |
It still amazes me hollywood's penchant for changing history to make it more interesting or viewer friendly. I mean, armies that really walked the earth and events that really happened, how can that not be interesting? |
Watch any military film that was made by people who are overly concerned with historical detail and you will see why Hollywood wants a better script than a history book. Some of the most boring movies ever made are war pictures that make every word that comes from every mouth deserve a footnote to a history book.
It is not easy to follow the middle path to create an entertaining historical film that is sufficiently true to reality to avoid offending purists. Much easier to film a novel, like Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind.
Posts: 5,739 Location: Wichita, Kansas
Tue 04 Jan, 2005 1:38 pm
Eric McHugh wrote: |
Gabriel Stevens wrote: | I'm perfectly willing to let Scott abuse history as long as the movie is well done and entertaining. I'm just curious how all this is going to be distorted so that the muslims need defending as it says in the article Alina linked to. Historically didn't Saladin pretty much show up and Orlando's charater handle the negotiations for surrender of the city? |
I wish I felt the same way. I'm of the opinion that history is very interesting by itself. It still amazes me hollywood's penchant for changing history to make it more interesting or viewer friendly. I mean, armies that really walked the earth and events that really happened, how can that not be interesting? Another thing I noticed (of course I'm a nerd about this stuff) was the incorrect helms, swords etc. Isn't the context of this film the first crusade? They have mixed helms and equipment that predate the first crusade by several hundred years, and then placed sword in the hands of guys that were typical several hundred years after the first crusade. Very strange. I guess to an uninformed audience weapons over the span of 400 years is no big deal as long as they look "neat." I, on the other hand, go nuts when I see this crap. It reminds me of Simon Atherton's "night arrows" in Timeline...oh right, give me a break! |
Actually the swords look far more anachronistic to me than the armor does. If the film takes place at the time of Hattin, circa 1187, then that's post 1st Crusade or almost a century later. By that time the simple conical helm with a nasal was becoming a bit old fashioned, so I don't know if you would have seen it in such widespread use as you obviously do in this film. Conical helms with face plates and proto-great helms would be more accurate IMHO. Of course we wouldn't be able to see Orly's sexy mug. (Is that a bad thing? Me thinks not.) The integral mittens on the hauberks might be jumping the gun by about twenty or thirty years. We're talking about a pretty fine time distinction though and a lot of that is open to interpretation. That sword though looks way out of date to me. With that blade and hilt design it looks like it should stay about two hundred years down the road. Not to mention the fact that a Grete Swerde is a bit early for 1187 as well.
Look at it this way, at least their not using rapiers and fighting in knitted maille.
Posts: 508 Location: Beaver Dam, WI
Tue 04 Jan, 2005 1:49 pm
I agree with you Patrick about the sword and your comment brings to mind that that blade would be much more at home in a movie on the Hundred Years War (which, I forgot to include in my list of historical movies I would like to see :D
Posts: 5,739 Location: Wichita, Kansas
Tue 04 Jan, 2005 1:56 pm
Lloyd Clark wrote: |
I agree with you Patrick about the sword and your comment brings to mind that that blade would be much more at home in a movie on the Hundred Years War (which, I forgot to include in my list of historical movies I would like to see :D |
I think you're right. There haven't been very many movies set during the hundred years "war". Timeline doesn't count since it was barely a movie. :D
There was an old one with Errol Flynn, The Warriors, maybe? It was one of Flynn's later movies and the critical consensus of the time was that he was getting a bit long in the tooth for those run jump and buckle your swash movies. Still, it seemed like a pretty decent movie for the time in terms of armour and weapons. I hate wearing the transitional armour of the period but it sure looks neat.
Posts: 1,191 Location: Kingston, Washington
Tue 04 Jan, 2005 4:03 pm
Kind of early for steel targets, too, I might point out...
Gordon
Posts: 4,393 Location: Northern California
Tue 04 Jan, 2005 4:58 pm
Speaking of Hundred Years War movies, there is Kenneth Branagh's Henry V. I haven't ween it in a number of years. It would be interesting to see how accurate its arms and armor is.
Posts: 342 Location: Simmesport, LA
Wed 05 Jan, 2005 7:59 am
Historical accuracy
Steve Fabert wrote: |
Watch any military film that was made by people who are overly concerned with historical detail and you will see why Hollywood wants a better script than a history book. Some of the most boring movies ever made are war pictures that make every word that comes from every mouth deserve a footnote to a history book.
It is not easy to follow the middle path to create an entertaining historical film that is sufficiently true to reality to avoid offending purists. Much easier to film a novel, like Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind. |
I disagree here and I think that one does not automatically ensure the other. My general problem is why does changing events as they factually occurred necessicearily make a better movie? I don't 'think historical accuracy=boring is apt. From what I have read of movie making the arms and armor anachronisms tend to have more to do with the art department and budget. There was probably an art department head who designed the costumes and weapons. Depending on how closely this person was willing to work with the armorer of the movie, who is sometimes considered more of a go-getter than a historical expert, dictates how historically accurate the A&A becomes. The person in charge of the arms is often told "make this" and he does, reguardless of whether it fits the historical period in question. Sometimes, depending on the budget, the props department is forced to rent things such as helms, sheilds and armor. So by the time all of this filtering process occurs, a varying degree of anachronisms show up. So far as I know, only The Lord of the RIngs had it's entire A&A needs made in house. So I guess some forgiveness is required on our part though I know it's hard for us to watch sometimes. Still in all my big beef is usually with blatant fact changes in the story. I don't know if Kingdom of Heaven will do this in a wholesale fashion. We'll just haev to see.
Joel
Posts: 1,191 Location: San Francisco, CA
Wed 05 Jan, 2005 12:15 pm
These discussions remind of something my university department hosts every once in a while.
It is called "Biology movies gone bad". This is a viewing of a selected movie which misuses several biological principles. The viewing is preceded by a senior scientist explaining the basic biology the movie "borrowed", how the biology works (at least according to the scientific community at large), and how the movie used/misused and abused the biological principles. Following the movie there is a discussion.
I personally think it is a great idea, as it is very educational and it can turn a "bad-movie" experience in to a "fun-experience". I am inclined to think that similar more organized discussions here are possible, but that it requires more planning and time from the myArmoury team, which I am guessing is already overly busy with other stuff.
Here is a simple plan:
Some one picks a historical movie from whatever is available for rent (or a list of suggestions) . Someone very knowledgable on the subject covered by the move outlines the "accurate" history, arms, armour, battle strategies, etc. (the emphasis will differ depending on the movie and the person preparing the overview/review). Also the most crucial/obvious mistakes in the movie are outlined and discussed.
Then people interested can go, rent and watch the movie paying attention to the discussed issues.
Then there is some general and hopefully more directed discussion.
This is just an idea which may completely fail in the context of an internet forum.
What do I think this adds: Clears historical errors and misconceptions introduced in the movie, and at the same time discusses the different aspects of history and warfare in a more organized and directed manner. It also puts every one on the same page: the movie is out for anyone to see, and a good "background" review has been offered for those not experts in the given time-period's arms/armor/warfare/history.
Just wishful thinking,
Alexi
Posts: 9,545 Location: Dayton, OH
Sun 09 Jan, 2005 12:02 pm
Looks like MRL will be producing replicas from this movie:
MRL page
Posts: 723 Location: Sweden
Sun 09 Jan, 2005 2:29 pm
Roger Hooper wrote: |
Speaking of Hundred Years War movies, there is Kenneth Branagh's Henry V. I haven't ween it in a number of years. It would be interesting to see how accurate its arms and armor is. |
One has to remember that it was made on a very tight budget, though. It doesn't look too out of line, but the old 1945 version has some better armour in general (OTOH, it has rubber swords, too!).
Posts: 723 Location: Sweden
Sun 09 Jan, 2005 2:42 pm
Patrick Kelly wrote: |
If the film takes place at the time of Hattin, circa 1187, then that's post 1st Crusade or almost a century later. (...) Not to mention the fact that a Grete Swerde is a bit early for 1187 as well. |
Guy de Lusignan, Saladin... definitely 3rd Crusade stuff. As for Grete Swerdes, remember the big sword Peter documented in Germany? Roughly the same type, and about a century earlier than expected.
Quote: |
Look at it this way, at least their not using rapiers and fighting in knitted maille. |
Considering the A&A in "Gladiator" (spanning over almost 1000 years), we should be happy that they don't show up in WW2 helmets...
Posts: 1,191 Location: San Francisco, CA
Sun 09 Jan, 2005 3:01 pm
Björn Hellqvist wrote: |
[
Considering the A&A in "Gladiator" (spanning over almost 1000 years), we should be happy that they don't show up in WW2 helmets... |
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I do not know why but the thought of crusaders with WWII helmets made me laugh so hard I almost fell from my chair.
On a separate note, I dismissed the blade design on the movie poster as a "Hollywood imaginary blade", with the fuller reaching all the way to the point and the pronounced profile taper, but I was quickly corrected by the "Arms and Armor of the Crusading Era 1050-1350" by David Nicolle. Illustration 823 (p516) shows a sword with identical profile taper and a fuller which runs all the way to the tip. The sword is dated to 12/13c and is from Skykov, Slovakia. The pommel is a peculiar brasil nut shape.
Alexi
Posts: 5,739 Location: Wichita, Kansas
Sun 09 Jan, 2005 3:43 pm
Alexi,
I believe that illustration shows a sword of single-handed proportions not one of Grete Swerde size. If you view the films trailer the sword seems to have a diamond
cross-section with a fuller that runs 2/3 to 3/4 of the length of the blade, something that seems better suited for the late 14th, early 15th century.
Posts: 1,191 Location: San Francisco, CA
Sun 09 Jan, 2005 4:25 pm
Patrick Kelly wrote: |
Alexi,
I believe that illustration shows a sword of single-handed proportions not one of Grete Swerde size. If you view the films trailer the sword seems to have a diamond cross-section with a fuller that runs 2/3 to 3/4 of the length of the blade, something that seems better suited for the late 14th, early 15th century. |
You are right that the sword I alluded to is of single handed proportion, as opposed to the hand-and-a-half one pictured on the poster. I guess I have to watch the trailer now, since in the poster the the fuller looks as extending all the way to the tip ( I guess the shades are playing tricks). Any how, as was mentioned by others, the hilt of the movie sword puts it later than the the 2/3 crusades, but at least they have a blade datable to the same period.
thanks for the correction,
Alexi
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
cannot reply to topics in this forum
You
cannot edit your posts in this forum
You
cannot delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot vote in polls in this forum
You
cannot attach files in this forum
You
can download files in this forum