| Author |
Message |
|
Patrick Kelly
|
 Posted: Tue 04 Jan, 2005 9:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| 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.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
Last edited by Patrick Kelly on Tue 04 Jan, 2005 1:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
   |
 |
|
Joel Whitmore
Location: Simmesport, LA Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Jan, 2005 10:24 am Post subject: 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
|
|
  |
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Jan, 2005 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Blaz Berlec
|
|
 |
|
Eric McHugh
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Jan, 2005 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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!
Find me on Facebook, or check out my blog. Contact me at eric@crownforge.net or ericmycue374@comcast.net if you want to talk about a commission or discuss an available piece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Fabert
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Jan, 2005 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Jan, 2005 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
|
|
|
Lloyd Clark
Location: Beaver Dam, WI Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 508
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Jan, 2005 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 
Cheers,
Lloyd Clark
2000 World Jousting Champion
2004 World Jousting Bronze Medalist
Swordmaster
Super Proud Husband and Father!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Jan, 2005 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
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.
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.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Hooper
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Jan, 2005 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Whitmore
Location: Simmesport, LA Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Wed 05 Jan, 2005 7:59 am Post subject: 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
|
|
|
|
|
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Wed 05 Jan, 2005 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Fabert
|
| Posted: Wed 05 Jan, 2005 1:02 pm Post subject: Re: Historical accuracy |
|
|
| Joel Whitmore wrote: | | 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.
Joel |
There are two different ways to go wrong in making a movie about historical events. One is to abuse the events to form a crude backdrop to a story that has little or nothing to do with them. The other is to worry so much about potential historical inaccuracy that the film becomes a series of still shots with actors speaking no words other than the exact quotes that are approved by published historians. Potential audiences are more forgiving of the first form of error, which sacrifices the history for the story, than the second variety, which produces a film that can only be watched by the most avid fans of the history of the events portrayed and puts everyone else to sleep.
I am not suggesting that any film that is historically accurate is required to be boring. I am just pointing out that it is too easy for people whose primary interest is historical accuracy to produce a boring film. History books do not contain the material that is needed for a screenplay. Dialog and personal interactions are needed, not maps and excerpts from letters or books.
The right combination of producer, script, director, and actors are required to make a film that people want to watch. If you can join with these people the right technical advisers and a willingness to spend the money to get the details right, it is possible to produce a film that is both entertaining and not filled with anachronisms. That perfect combination is rarely assembled. So we most often see one or the other extreme, a commercially successful film that tramples history, or an accurate film that nobody wants to sit through.
Unless Steven Spielberg decides that the Middle Ages deserve a film like "Saving Private Ryan", you may have to wait a while to see a swordplay movie that is both watchable and accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
|
|
|
|
Björn Hellqvist
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Jan, 2005 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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!).
My sword site
|
|
|
|
|
Björn Hellqvist
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Jan, 2005 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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...
My sword site
|
|
|
|
|
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Jan, 2005 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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... |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Jan, 2005 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
|
|
|
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Jan, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic
