I too am an LHer like Matt and do public demos at timeleine events and have done schools as well, although I do 15th c and not the early stuff. I have to agreee that I am constantly appalled at the number of people who take the Hollywood BS as gospel and have to set them straight. That's one of the many reasons I do LH. I have even seen a teacher at Houstead's fort on Hadrian's Wall tell her young field trip students that the hypocaust they were looking at was in fact the sewer system for the house. So yes, there is an equally appalling amount of ignorance in the teaching profession as well. Is anyone really surprised at this? Also disturbing are the number of teachers who take thier students to "Medieval Times" to learn about the middle ages. They were extremely regretful when they found out there was such a thing as LH that they could have had for half the price.

All that being said however, I can still go to see these movies and be entertained. Sure I can pick nits with the best of them but is it worth the negative energy and bottles of pink liquid? If the overall impression is fine so what, and even if it isn't so what. It's entertainment and what sells folks! Despite any director's attempt at accuracy no matter what they may say, it all boils down to those two concepts. Those of us that know the reality of history should try to keep this in perspective. Also keep in mind that some themes are timeless. I have seen Shakespear's "Julius Caesar" done in a modern post apocalyptic setting and although disapointed at the directors choice of expression (I was really looking forward to some sword fights) it did not detract from the Bard's original intent.

Didn't watch this film, but did watch another this evening that reminded me that I go to the movies to be taken away from the mundane for a pleasant little interval. Not to learn. Not to marvel at exacting recreations of anything. Just to drift of into a pleasant little diversion, even if its completely nonsensical. :)

But then again, I think I'm in love with the Heineken keg robot woman and her two sisters or whatever they are. So perhaps I'm not the best judge of serious things like this. ;)

It's okay, Nathan, we're still in scholarly debate mode, here, with just a few spicy opinions thrown in!

Stephen S. Han wrote:

Matthew, I don't want to start some kind of a flme war, but... :lol:

Oh, no worries! I should have been a little more specific, too, since some of my comments were not directly in response to you, but more general.

Quote:

My rant was pointed toward those "historical accuracy Nazis" whose tiresome mantra of "it's not historically accurate, therefore garbage" gets thrown in my face.

Fair enough! I'm with you on that one: accuracy does not necessarily make a good movie (haven't seen "Alexander", but from what I've heard...), nor does INaccuracy necessarily make a bad movie.

Quote:

I do disagree with you about historically accurate costs less.

Not always, but all too many movies add things large or small which are not accurate. Leave them out, and the movie is automatically made more accurate, without the expense. For example, the opening battle of "Gladiator" involved hundreds of flaming arrows and catapult missiles, creating a wall of fire. Dramatic, but ridiculous. Even those viewers who knew nothing about ancient warfare might have guessed that making a wall of fire for your own cavalry ambush to ride through might not be the best tactics around. And every legionary had black leather armguards and mud splattered all over his shield. Leave those out (shields in actuality had removable covers to keep them clean until battle time), and save a few bucks. Remember, the more little details you get right, the fewer nit-pickers will complain, and more people will come to see the movie. That's more money for the producers!

Quote:

I read magazine articles about extraordinary costs involved in getting every detail as closely historical as possible for the movie "Last of the Mohicans" which involved minute recreation of uniform buttons and such.

Oh, definitely, accuracy like that costs a ton. But again, to pick on "Gladiator", even though all the armor was basically Roman-influenced fantasy stuff (I've been studying this for far too long!), just painting it to look like METAL would have made a world of difference. "Excalibur" had shiny armor, so why not "Gladiator"?

Quote:

I am equally impatient with someone who says something like, "Saving Private Ryan was okay until they messed up the Waffen SS soldiers' haircuts. It ruined the whole movie for me." Why oh why do these people allow a minute "mistakes" ruin their life's experiences?

I'm with you again! If the problems with "Gladiator", "Passion", "Troy", "Last Legion" and other recent works were so miniscule, I'd be in movie heaven.

Quote:

Of course we all know these mistakes don't ruin anything, but these people feel the need to say something which in their minds make them superior to we lowly peasants who don't know about the haircut patterns of the Waffen SS. :p

Weeeellllll, that may be a little unjust! It's fair to say that they're too uptight, but I'd hesitate to ascribe such arrogance to them unless I knew them better. Especially when we're not supposed to prejudge a movie by a few very bad-looking stills, eh?

But as far as entertaining goes, sure I agree! I'm a big Arnold Schwarzenegger fan, so you can hardly call me a snob. Maybe my tastes in stupid movies are just different from those who like "Gladiator" or "300"--I just feel that even perfect historical accuracy would not make them watchable. For ME! If entertainment is all I'm after, there are just other things I'd prefer to see.

If most of the reviews of "Last Legion" rave about the amazing script, brilliant acting, and superb directing, I'll look forward to seeing it. But a few guys saying "Kick-ass fights!" just won't do it, I'm afraid. Hey, that's just me!

Matthew

"Last Legion" opened in the DC area last weekend w/o a screening for the film critics. Does that omission tell you something about the film? In one trailer, I saw a Late Roman trooper using an Indian Katar push blade. Does that tell you something about the fim?

Matt, I would agree with you and thank you for stating the question so well. Why make a film with such silly inaccuracies when you could do it accurately for the same or less? BTW, I once asked, in another forum, why someone who had a reputation for good films allowed the Praetorian Guard in "Gladiator" to come off looking like a cross between Darth Vader and Hitler's SS troops. One resonse was that the appearance was, perhaps, intentional to make them look more oppressive. It still doesn't explain the grubby appearance of the legionaries in the field, however.

Hey guys, Have you ever seen 13 Warriors?
I don´t know its English name but it is about 12 Viking warriors and a Persian one (Antonio Banderas). Did you see the Viking Jarl wearing an Italian XVI century armour?
Thats crap. But the story is good and i loved that movie.
Personally i prefer historicaly accurate things, but as we all know Hollywood prefers half hour lasting sword duels instead of a ten seconds of accurate swordplay with a Flos Duellatorum technique and next a dead man.

Rudolfo, there is a prime example of how a good story and decent acting can make up for some really silly mistakes in the technical end of things. Banderas' scene where he is reshaping one of the monster Viking swords into a shamshir is silly as can be but it is also funny as can be when the repartee between him and the others is considered. Similarly, some, if not most, of "King Arthur" was actually sort of funny and sort of interesting. I found the portrayal of a Wall fort to be rather well done. But then we had the idiotic character using two Chinese sabers slung across his back.

And I am not even addressing the very unhistorical portrayal of Germanus and of the Christian Church of that time. I would only suggest that you read Jack Whyte's take on Germanus in the "Camulod Chroncles" for a rather better and fairer presentation.

Well, the reason why i posted this was not because of historical accuracey but it just looks like a cheap piece of garbage, I also dont like the look of the combat, it looks like the cheapo Hurc/ Zena combat.

I wish I had read this BEFORE I dropped 22 bucks on tickets and 30 on snacks ..... arghhhhhh

Colin,

"King Henry and his knights were winched onto their horses before they went into battle because the armour they wore was so heavy."


One of my favorite myths to bust at timelines. I used to be able to do hand stands (age and injury have finally caught up with me) in my armour but can still do pushups and win foot races against the shorts and tennis shoe crowd over a short course (in turnshoes). And of course everyone watching is amazed when I step into the saddle from the ground. The only consession I make there is to have someone put some weight in the off stirrup so that I don't wind up under the horse.

Colin,

Henry VIII is in my opinion not even really medieval. Though to be fair I am not very find of him and think his egotism actually can be seen by reading most of the accounts from his court. I have read most of the printed and some of the unprinted accounts of the courts from Edward I on but reading his accounts... wow, he thought alot of himself!

AS for the movie. I will wait till it comes out for rental likely. To be fair I go out to see mayeb one film a year lately--- think it is the 10 month old. Has a pretty good cast though. I wonder if the prode and prejudice crowd have all seen it? :lol:

RPM

I haven’t seen this movie and probably won’t bother after reading what has been said about it here. This morning’s paper did mention that it was not screened for critics, which is usually a good indication that the filmmakers aren’t very sure about it. However, I do have a nominee for a worse film. The Bruce, which came out on video in 1996, was undoubtedly the worst depiction of an era and events of which I have some knowledge that I have ever seen. I don’t know that it ever played in theaters in this country.

I have not watched it for some time and in fact only watched it once, so my recollection of the authenticity of the arms and armor is hazy, but it seems like it was OK. However, the twisting of history was abominable. The film starts with some armored knights riding through desert sands with, of all things, the pyramids in the background. The knights are attacked by a swarm of Muslim horsemen and killed, after the one who is supposed to be Sir James Douglas throws the heart of Bruce in the general direction of the enemy. The problem is that the battle where this is supposed to have occurred took place in Spain, in Granada, a far piece from Egypt. And it is all downhill from there. The deBohun/Bruce confrontation at Bannockburn takes place during the main battle and on foot, not the day before on horseback. DeBohun gets far more attention in this movie than his brief footnote in history warrants. And there is a lot more of this sort of thing.

I am not a film critic, but if chewing the scenery won awards this one would have taken all the prizes in 1996.

Hopefully the production values and acting in The Last Legion are better than those of The Bruce.