[quote="Peter Bosman"]

George Hill wrote:

Then what is the right context for a horse frightened out of its wits by pain and not beinig able to avoid it?! Making a film for amusement?

I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying that I not willing to condemn an entire production over a single photo which may or may not mean what it 'looks' like it means, because whilst I know only a little about horses, I know rather more about the potentially misleading results of camera action at exactly the wrong moment and angle.

[quote="George Hill"]

Peter Bosman wrote:

George Hill wrote: Then what is the right context for a horse frightened out of its wits by pain and not being able to avoid it?! Making a film for amusement? I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying that I not willing to condemn an entire production over a single photo which may or may not mean what it 'looks' like it means, because whilst I know only a little about horses, I know rather more about the potentially misleading results of camera action at exactly the wrong moment and angle.

If whoever owns the horses or is the person in charge of their wellbeing took some serious corrective action and this was a very early production shot and not typical of the way the horse " seems " to have been treated them maybe the whole production shouldn't be condemned ? If the perceptions is correct and " is " typical of the way all the horses were really treated then maybe the SPCA or whatever organization regulates the use of animals in films should ask some pointed questions. :evil: ( Or pointed in that direction if we can find the right regulating body ! )

Having done more that a little photography I also know that one can get almost any facial expression on a human if one times the shot to make the subject looked stupid or scared ....... etc ... ( Again, with horses I'm not an expert on their body language and someone who is may have good reasons to be upset ! ) ( Peter I don't think we are disagreeing at all and like George I don't want to rush to judgement but it is a disturbing picture needing context ).

Getting back to the movie itself it does look interesting in spite of the maybe " wool " maille.

The thing about horses is, that they do not 'ly'.

What is shown in the foto may or may not be typical for this film. It is however not uncommon at all in horseriding. The problem with portraying it is that it becomes a reference of normal.

The ridiculously overbent neck of horses in dressage is a perfect example of this. An overbent horse cannot breath properly nor see more than its own feet. It is thé way to make a horse dependant on the rider. It is both unhealty and not at all good horsemanship. The general public and thus the rider has this as a reference from looking at statues p.e. and slowly but sure this has even crept into dressage regulations where the lastes change allows a hors to be overbent behind the vertical!!!!!!!!!!

So I am not too worried about this one picture of this one horse in this one motion picture. The real issue is that most readers on this forum have no idea of how a happy horse shoúld look since how cán they?! and will develop the wrong idea because thát is what they see. Yes this ís of paramount importance as 'the people' are the ones who's children will start riding horses and 'the people' are the ones with the public opinion.
Why put emphasis on being historically accurate? Same thing but far less important is it not.

Obviously one cannot compare a scene being shot with the way I ride and thus my horses are no valid expamples but do look at the horses Gordon rides p.e. They too have a bit, they too are in an re-enactment situation.

Peter

[ Linked Image ]

Is a happy horse with full attention to the 5-year old rider. Not at all historically correct for any crusader and not at all a thing of 'beauty' in most eyes and exactly thát is the crux. It should be :idea:

Peter

Could I also point out that the majority of bits used in period for both riding horses and warhorses were just plain snaffles or simple curbs. It is a bit of a myth that "medieval" bits are horrible instrument of torture and pain. It makes no sense to have, in battle, a horse that your life depends on driven mad by a severe bit.

Likewise, there is a very good reasons Gothic spurs are as long as they are, why large rowells are used etc, and it has nothing to do with causing the horse pain. You accomplish nothing by causing a horse pain and fear of you, the rider .

Now, I am not going to condemn this movie from that one still. You will see worse in any number of films with horses, at races, steeplechases, campdrafts, Polo games, ponyclubs, trail rides etc.

Occasionally stuff happens. I really don't think the actor meant to cause the horse any discomfort, I don't think the wrangler meant to cause the horse any discomfort. I think it is a bad combination of equipment, that's all.

Which only strengthens my point that somebody who can manage to start large-scale commercial production of period-looking but safe gear would find it a very profitable venture indeed . . . .

i am no expert on horses either but this was a production release picture. most like cut from a whole scene. not just a single still. and i think the point was that use of the bit and Standing Martingale forces discomfort on the horse. you can see in the photo the reins and the Standing Martingale a pulled tuant. the horse is distressed pulling up and away to the left. which seems correct since in the pict the reins seem slacker on that side. and use of the Standing Martingale meant anytime the horse suffered pain he was forced to endure it for the shot. i'm not one for animals. but this would be like having a searing itch and someone holding hands so you cant scratch it. and that is being nice.

Folks,
How animals are or aren't treated is not really on topic for this site. Let's not continue down this road, please.

Thanks! :)

Nice blade!

[ Linked Image ]

Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but could someone maybe explain the plot/ premise of this movie?

A young noble grows up in a monestary and being trained by a former Knights templar. When he´s grown up he has sex with his beloved and is excommunicated for that. Sends to Outremer as a Knight templar to serve for 20 years.
During his service he fights several battles, win some (Mont Gisard) and loose some (Hattin) and gets to known Salahdin.
When he comes home he recruit and trains young boys to be heavy cavalry and saves Sweden from the Danes.

Oh... he also invents the Microwave oven. :p

A Templar surviving the Battle of Hattin? I thought that, except for the Grand Master, all Templars left alive after the battle were executed by Saladin.

He gets spared because of his friendship with Salahdin.