One way of squeezing some interest out of a movie like this is to look at how it reflects the times it was made in. Cultures, relationships, good and bad guys are usually based on the values of the contemporary filmmaker. Some of those decisions are almost unconscious. Think what this movie would be like if it had been made in 1935 -- 1950 -- 1973 -- 1989 -- I bet it would come out pretty different for each date. And none of them would have much to do with what really might have happened 1000 years ago.

That trailer was painful. But I wonder if I would feel less disgusted after watching this film than I did after Beowulf and Grendel; not that I plan to find out. To echo W. Stilleborn, its easier to forgive ignorance than wilful perversion of source material; and the Pathfinder guys obviously have no knowledge of the cultures they're denigrating. It's pretty apparent that after being told to "research the Vikings" they all sat down with their notebooks and watched Willow.

When I saw the preview for this thing in the theater, I thought "oh, @#$@%$$. What did we do to deserve that?" The annoying thing about movies like this is that whether they are promoted as fact or fantasy, the public will think it's fact unless Gandalf shows up being chased by Nasgul.

Oh, well...

Once upon a time, Hollyweird did get it pretty close to right -- The Vikings. with Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis. The Warlord, with Charlton Heston, also deserves mention due to it's treatment of the Frisians, a "Viking" people. Sure, these older films may be a bit cheezy by our standards, but the producers of these films did their research (no horned helmets in either of this films!). There are a few other films from back in "the day" which actually used the latest research available in their depictions of historical events. Alas, those days seem to be long in the past. The research is more readily available than ever before, and accurate reproductions of arms, armor, garb, etc are also much easier to find. But Hollywouldn't just doesn't seem to care anymore.

"Bums on seats ladies, bums on seats."

Just look at the swords that are available to buy anywhere public. ;)
The crap that sells is amazing. The same can be said for movies. The gaudy, inaccurate, misproportioned, bling'n, poo is what the majority of the public wants.

It extends beyond movies, too. The Bling'n poo is rampant in video/computer games, books, tv shows, role-playing games, and even kid's toys.

For some reason, people in charge of making and marketing stuff gets it in their head that this is what the public wants (and perhaps the public is to blame, after all, they keep buying the crud). And so we get giant "swords," armor that Conan wouldn't be able to move in, horns on viking helmets, etc. etc. etc.

I have to deal with Bling'n poo (I like this term!) all the time in my line of work (paleontology), mostly because that's what the general public seems to want, and (slightly moreso) what the media seems to think the general public wants.

The question is, how can we counter it? Or can we?

I'm going to wade in here and muddy the water a bit. While I agree with what everybody has said about this film and others (i.e., 13th Warriror), I would like to add that these wastes of celluloid are not alone in their lack of concern for historical accuracy (my favorite was the viking in 13th Warrior who was wearing a Roman Gladiator's helmet!). I've lost count of the number of DOCUMETARIES I've watched on A&E, Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc., that are just as bad or worse then these awful movies. Just dealing with Vikings alone, I've seen everything from (yes, it's true) horned helmets, furs everywhere, and scenes of Viking ships being constructed where the keel and ribs are laid out on the beach (to the uninitiated, Norse shipwrights would attach the strakes to the keel first, and then lay in the ribs afterwards). I don't know which is worse, films that make no real pretense at historical accuracy, or so-called "Documentaries" that claim to present history the way "it really was". I've stopped watching both; actually, I'm not allowed to watch them anymore - my wife can't stand the screams of agony, not to mention the tantrums...

In the most recent "Starlog" magazine, there is an article on the movie. The director or production designer admits that the main Viking bad guy is taken directly from the Frazetta painting "The Death Dealer."
The article has a few production stills. I was disappointed as I hoped the movie was "just" going to be a good story of Vikings vs. Indians. Not a fantasy-special effects driven flick.
The story premise is good. Abandoned Viking child raised by Indians has to confront Vikings as an adult. This could have been a good drama and examination of the cultures.

We can only hope that this movie may inspire people who do not have any knowledge of the period to do a bit of research to find out more and realize what a load of bollocks they have just been served up as "historical" .It was the spectacle of films like El Cid and the Vikings that got me interested in historical weapons and warfare and not they`re accuracy.This by no means excuses lazy film makers who should no better .

Before we get too far up on our historical high horse I'd like to point out, nowhere in the promotional material I've seen for this film is there anything that indicates this is an historical film. Unlike some recent films, I've seen nothing saying "this is the way it was", "based on a true story" or anything of the kind. The films makers have made no claim to an accurate historical interpretation. At best this is fantasy and while it doesn't appear to be very good fantasy I don't think we're justified in being overly vitriolic in our criticism of the people who made it.

I take your point Patrick, but when historic cultures are involved I think the aggressive criticism stands. Any modern culture portrayed in such a film would cause no small amount of eye-rolling; and just because there are no 10th century Scandinavians around today doesn't mean we shouldn't cry foul when someone misrepresents them as a people. Imagine a film that portrayed a group of first world war French soldiers wearing Frazetta helms. I'd say most people who knew better would be irked, even if the film's plot was not based on historical events.

I agree with Patrick that we shouldn't go too ballistic about it and we should make the distinction between a film intended or " sold " as based on history and a " fantasy film " with no such pretensions.

The ideas expressed so far are valid it's just getting upset about it that is excessive: Once said that it's completely NOT historical it's a waste of time saying if the film will be any good on that basis.

It might be a fun " fantasy " ride or a really bad film I'm not 100% sure yet. ;)

Or it might be as bad as the film Sean Quin was talking about:

Quote:

Reminded me of a crappy film starring Lee Majors called the Norsemen I saw years ago(Horned helmed and breastplated Vikings arrive in America and beat the living snot out of the Natives etc.)

I unfortunately saw this film when it came out and still remember it as one of the longest 90 minutes ever spent at the movies.
:(

[/quote]

Very good points James and I agree. However, I do think there's a limit to everything and this type of discussion often exceeds those limits. There are three things people just can't seem to keep in perspective: politics, religion and movies. Should/could the makers of these movies take a bit of time to actually do some research? I would say yes. Is the truth often more interesting than the fiction they dream up? Again, I'd say yes. We can certainly disagree with someones artistic choice (and these things are often exactly that, not the blind graspings of morons as we'd like to believe) and I can tell you right now there's already a lot of things I disagree with in this movie, just from seeing the trailer. However, calling people ignorant and lazy because their priorities are different than ours does a disservice to the discussion and all the parties involved in it.

Here's another point of perspective: we often get irate at these new movies. We whine and cry about how important the accurate portrayal of history is, blah, blah, blah. On the other hand, how many of us are as well versed in the events of the real world in the here and now? (which I assume is just as important as the past) How many of us get actively involved in the political process in our city, state or federal government? How many of us helped our neighbors the last time they were in need, or even know our neighbors? How many of us know how many children starve to death in this country every day, or better yet do something about it? Another: Pluto is in the news again. How many here can name the discoverer of Pluto without the use of a search engine? (a Kansan by the way) That's history isn't it and therefore important? How many of us have seen events reported on the evening news that are later proven to be false and misrepresented? How many of us get equally upset at that as we do at a b-grade hollywood movie? Do we get on our morality soap box or do we simple shake our head and say "oh well". Which event should get the higher priority?

I could go on and on but I think you get the point. It's all a matter of perspective and we need to keep the proper perspective on things like entertainment. Is it irritating when they don't get our own little fringe interest correct right down to the number of hairs on Ragnars bearskin cloak? Sure it is but the world won't stop rotating on its axis because of it. Getting vitriolic and insulting won't change anything, it will only make us look as ignorant as we assume the film makers to be.

Jean, well said.

One should not forget that there are historical inaccuracies of the modern age. Ones that may have been manipulated severely, and fed to an unedumacated public. Ones that alter an accurate general view of things irrepairably, for the benefit of the victorious "peoples". Ones that many of us may not even have been given the chance to know about. Ones that far outway the correctness of visual period portrayal on film. Even though it is all linked in the end anyway. Politics and entertainment are forever entwined. It is safer, and possibly neccessary, for those who are content to follow like sheep. And maybe for those who lead also... . We shall now return to our regularly scheduled topic. lol. :eek: