| Author |
Message |
|
Marcos Cantu
|
 Posted: Sun 15 Jan, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject: Tristan and Isolde |
 |
|
|
Just got back from watching and thought that it was pretty damn good. I dont feel like I know enough about this time period or the original story to comment much on the accuracy of the weapons and armor. The intro at the beginning sets the time as the "Dark Ages" but I'm guessing its around 600 AD. The swords were mostly Viking type with some Celtic types thrown in too. There were also a fair a number of maces, spears and axes. Has anyone else seen it yet and care to shar an opinion? FWIW, the story was much more compelling than Kingdom of Heaven (theartical release) and I actually cared about what was going to happen to the characters--unlike in KoH.
|
|
  |
 |
|
William Hurst
Location: California Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing the movie. I have no idea how historically accurate the movie was; but after seeing this film I honestly could care less about accuracy since it was so damn good. I agree, you actually care about these characters. It seems like we've had a slew of really bad sword movies (King Arthur, Troy, Alexander) and some mediocre ones (KoH), and it's so refreshing to finally have a good one come out. It was also nice to see some good swordplay, as recent movies have been a real letdown in that area. Again, no idea how historically accurate it was, but I enjoyed this one immensely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Barris
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tristan and Isolde is one of the Arthurian legends, probably made up when Authur stories were flying around like comic books and later incorporated into the Vulgate Cycle. As a fiction, I'm not sure historical accuracy comes into play here, since the story was intended to be part of a magical fairy tale. There's even a love potion involved. I'm more dissapointed that they clearly either didn't read, or else read and disregarded the original story. That not the same kind of inaccuracy as you'd find in a supposedly historical movie with vikings running around in Gothic armor and carrying rapiers, but in a way I think it's worse. All that care going into making things period specific and you screw up something as easily fixed as the script. Sigh...
Pax,
Sam Barris
"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
|
|
 |
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam Barris wrote: | | Tristan and Isolde is one of the Arthurian legends, probably made up when Authur stories were flying around like comic books and later incorporated into the Vulgate Cycle. As a fiction, I'm not sure historical accuracy comes into play here, since the story was intended to be part of a magical fairy tale. There's even a love potion involved. I'm more dissapointed that they clearly either didn't read, or else read and disregarded the original story. That not the same kind of inaccuracy as you'd find in a supposedly historical movie with vikings running around in Gothic armor and carrying rapiers, but in a way I think it's worse. All that care going into making things period specific and you screw up something as easily fixed as the script. Sigh... |
As you pointed out it got mixed up with/incorporated into Arthurian legends very early early on. And since Arthur, if he existed at all, would have probably been around in the late 5th-early 6th century, setting this story in the 6th century is probably OK. I've not seen this film yet so I cannot comment further though.
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
i heard it was a chick flick. ehhehe. 
no historical value at all.
|
|
 |
|
|
Marcos Cantu
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chuck Russell wrote: | i heard it was a chick flick. ehhehe.
no historical value at all. |
I commented to my date that 75% of the people in the theatre were girls....
There is still enough arms, armor, battles and period clothing to keep most of us happy though...and Isolde is hot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Shaw
Location: Boston, MA USA Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does Isolde wear any armor or get involved in any swordplay? Purely academic question, of course...
 
|
|
 |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Liked the film and yes it is a bit of a " chick flick " but it is a good story when judged on it's own merits.
Very little to no armour except for leather armour with some limited metal reinforcements and padded clothing that could be seen as early gambison at least in function. No maille observed at all which is a surprise as I would at least expect the Kings or a few elite warriors to have at least a sleeveless or short sleeved maille shirt. Don't remember seeing any steel helms or many helms at all except hardened leather ones.
The swords look late Viking or very early Medieval which is a lot better than 16th century twohanders or rapiers 
One good thing is that most of the Castles are of the early wooden Keep and wooden stockades types with only one stone round Keep which is mentioned in the film as being exceptional: After the first wooden castle is burned down they rebuild in stone.
Now is it just that I know little of this periods history or the original story, but the Villains are the Irish who seem to have most of England under some sort of vassalage or at least receive tribute from the various English kingdoms that are mentioned as being Celts, Saxons, Picts and maybe a couple more 
Now I can see Irish raiders taking advantage of the power vacuum caused by the departure of the Romans but I don't think the Irish would have taken over Britain and been in a position to rule over the whole territory. ( Could be wrong or illinformed !? )
Oh, there is an interesting sword carried by one of the main bad guys that looks like a large Broken tip Falchion with the blade being at it's widest near the point.
Picking apart the film and evaluating the various aspects of it is a good after viewing activity but the bottom line is that the film was enjoyable and it is a good " date film " that you won't have to drag a girl friend to. ( Oh, no not another sword movie  )
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcos Cantu
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I knew I had seen Sophia Myles (Isolde) before. She played the blonde vampire in Underworld
And I had no trouble getting my date to go see it...she actually really liked it
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Hurst
Location: California Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Marcos Cantu wrote: | | Chuck Russell wrote: | i heard it was a chick flick. ehhehe.
no historical value at all. |
I commented to my date that 75% of the people in the theatre were girls....
There is still enough arms, armor, battles and period clothing to keep most of us happy though...and Isolde is hot! |
Same situation on my end. I think I was one of five guys in the theatre.
Yeah...Isolde was really hot. It made the two hours well worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick K.
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
Now is it just that I know little of this periods history or the original story, but the Villains are the Irish who seem to have most of England under some sort of vassalage or at least receive tribute from the various English kingdoms that are mentioned as being Celts, Saxons, Picts and maybe a couple more
Now I can see Irish raiders taking advantage of the power vacuum caused by the departure of the Romans but I don't think the Irish would have taken over Britain and been in a position to rule over the whole territory. ( Could be wrong or illinformed !? ) |
As I recall, various Irish groups did establish what were ultimately ephemeral colonies/hegemony in parts of Wales and Cornwall as the Romans retreated and the Germanic groups invaded in the west ( St. Patrick, taken as a slave while young from elsewhere in Europe, most likely came from south Wales ). But over all of Britain? Nah.
- Tamerlane
|
|
 |
|
Josh Hibbs
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William Hurst wrote: | | It seems like we've had a slew of really bad sword movies (King Arthur, Troy, Alexander) and some mediocre ones (KoH), and it's so refreshing to finally have a good one come out. |
I don't wanna get on any bodies bad side with this but i thought King Arthur was a great film because it got the other side of Arthur out there that a lot of people have never even heard of. Alexander where exellent films as well as the battles being really good. As a classics major i can't really get around how much they butchered the iliad in Troy but as for Alexander they really got the main idea of his life across. I found that people got really mad because didn't have too much fighting and was full of dialogue, but the movie was called "Alexander" and not "Alexander's great Battles". As for Kingdom of Heaven... well theres not much I can say exept that i want my two hours back as well as my gas money to go get it.
Just thought i would stick up for two movies that I thought were exellent films,
"We men are retched things"
~ Achilles
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Hurst
Location: California Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Josh Hibbs wrote: | | William Hurst wrote: | | It seems like we've had a slew of really bad sword movies (King Arthur, Troy, Alexander) and some mediocre ones (KoH), and it's so refreshing to finally have a good one come out. |
I don't wanna get on any bodies bad side with this but i thought King Arthur was a great film because it got the other side of Arthur out there that a lot of people have never even heard of. Alexander where exellent films as well as the battles being really good. As a classics major i can't really get around how much they butchered the iliad in Troy but as for Alexander they really got the main idea of his life across. I found that people got really mad because didn't have too much fighting and was full of dialogue, but the movie was called "Alexander" and not "Alexander's great Battles". As for Kingdom of Heaven... well theres not much I can say exept that i want my two hours back as well as my gas money to go get it.
Just thought i would stick up for two movies that I thought were exellent films, |
Fair enough. Don't worry about getting on people's bad sides if you're just stating your opinion. As far as why I didn't like King Arthur, I just didn't like the battles or fight choreography; I also didn't like the cast and Keira Knightly's sports bra. I really liked the Saxon leader and would have rather have seen him kill Arthur than the other way around. I also thought what they did with Merlin was really cool. But the acting, battles, and story/pacing just really rubbed me the wrong way.
I would definately rather watch King Arthur, as much as I disliked it, over Alexander. I have no problem with dialogue whatsoever, as long as it's interesting. For God's sake, I'm reading Lord of the Rings for the fourth time, so that should give you an idea of my attention span to dialogue and description. But Alexander had me in tears I was so bored. Anyways, I think I have deviated enough from the topic already....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Shaw
Location: Boston, MA USA Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I have to concur....I really disliked Alexander. I felt no emotion for the characters and really felt like it was a waste of a couple hours. But, to each their own....it had my favorite actress in it but overall I didn't like it.
Now, King Arthur....I actually liked that one, too. I liked that they at least got it in the right century, I liked that there were some historical elements that made me think a history expert might have even been consulted once when writing the script. I'm a little fuzzy on the Sarmatians but I was under the impression that the Sarmatians were driven Westward by the Huns into the Roman empire and that they did a real job on the rather cavalry-poor Romans. In the start of the movie, though...they're shown a beaten and practically enslaved people. But, seeing Arthur lose his field plate and bright golden city was nice. And yes, I liked what they did with the woads/merlin, too. And yes, that leather "sports bra" thing they did with Guenivere was just...bad.
Finally, I enjoyed KoH but I didn't find it all that compelling. I mostly enjoyed the action but I didn't get inside the characters at all. So, emotional attachment-zero, fun factor-high.
Now that I've written about 3 movies that aren't the topic of this thread....I'll at least make a nod to the thread title by saying...haven't seen Tristan and Isolde yet...looking forward to it soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shae Bishop
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just got back from seeing Tristin and Isolde. I must say I thought it was pretty good. I was surprised not to see any chain maille and I'm wondering about the accuracy of the armour in general. One character was wearing a scale armour shirt which looked like it was made of leather. Also there were numerous characters in open-faced leather brigandine type armour which gave me a little bit of a 14th century vibe. Can anyone comment on the accuracy of these armour types?
The swords seemed a few centuries late but besides a bit too much edge banging he fighting seemed ok. When Tristen is fighting in the tournament at one point he uses something like a flail which I've never heard of from the 6th century. Also, the Irish general's wheel pommeled, two-handed chopper/falchion felt quite out of place since I don't know of any two handed swords before the high middle ages.
Despite these accuracy questions I thought the movie was good. The story was moving and the characters weren't static, it's always refreshing to see characters who aren't perfect, not to mention Isolde is gorgeous. I am always glad to see any dark age/viking/migration era movies and I hope they start doing more.
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
i dunno, gonna wait till dvd. but the main guy is whereing a sweater for crying out loud hehehe
|
|
|
|
|
David Wilson
Location: In a van down by the river Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 803
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shawn Shaw wrote: | | I'm a little fuzzy on the Sarmatians but I was under the impression that the Sarmatians were driven Westward by the Huns into the Roman empire and that they did a real job on the rather cavalry-poor Romans. In the start of the movie, though...they're shown a beaten and practically enslaved people. |
To some extent, King Arthur got it somewhat right. Somewhat. What actually happened was that in the late 2nd century, Marcus Aurelius defeated a couple Sarmatian tribes (the idea that the entire Sarmatian people were conquered just isn't so). He did press them into service as cavalry, and many of them were deployed in Britain, some along Hadrian's wall. But this "slave/conscription" arrangement certainly didn't last as long as the movie showed, the practice probably died out not long after Marcus. If these Sarmatian tribes provided auxiliaries to Rome after that point, it would have been voluntarily (as was a common practice among Rome's "friends and neighbors"). And it's believed many of these Sarmatians simply settled where they were stationed, including Britain.
The Huns came much later, and "Arthurian Times" after that.
David K. Wilson, Jr.
Laird of Glencoe
Now available on Amazon: Franklin Posner's "Suburban Vampire: A Tale of the Human Condition -- With Vampires" https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072N7Y591
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Hitchens
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jan, 2006 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If I remember right, Kevin Reynolds directed this. I've always liked his films (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Count of Monte Cristo, others)
"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Grisetti
|
| Posted: Sat 04 Feb, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had been planning on seeing Tristin and Isolde in the theater with my wife, but it already appears to be gone from the Orlando area. Must have bombed at the box office. If so, that doesn't bode well for Ridley Scott (Exec Producer with his brother Tony), after last year's Kingdom of Heaven.
"...dismount thy tuck, be yare in thy preparation, for thy assailant is quick, skilful, and deadly."
- Sir Toby Belch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Barris
|
| Posted: Sat 04 Feb, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a pretty good article, once you get past the author's sarcasm. It simultaneously answers both the people who love the new Authurian movies and the people who criticize them for not having enough historical validity.
http://www.twoheadedcat.com/content/article.php?articleID=1573
Pax,
Sam Barris
"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic