| Author |
Message |
Alain D.
|
 Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 10:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I think one reason they don't always have those elaborate suits of historic armor is the cost to produce such pieces. Some of the links on here for suggested armor pieces were made for the wealthiest nobility and would cost quite a bit to make today. I would love to see that stuff in movies, but I can see why they wouldn't.
I also agree with what Joshua said. When the movie is about a legendary character and not taken straight from historical facts, it's not really true history that's being presented and I don't expect full historical accuracy. If they were marketing it as a historical documentary, I would feel differently, but it's supposed to just be more of a fun story with a realistic feel for the time. I think the real mistake here is simply the fact that they mentioned historical accuracy at all. I'm guessing they have a different definition of historical accuracy than we do.
I've seen some people saying that films should be completely historically accurate because real stories are better than made-up ones. In some cases I think this can be true, but in many cases, I disagree. In reality, most true stories contain exciting climaxes separated by much less dramatic dialogue, thinking, travel, ect. A lot of that stuff isn't that interesting, but is necessary to understand a story. A completely historically accurate story would likely, in most cases, be sort of like watching an x number of years old version of the evening news. Keep in mind that a large portion of the audience is looking for dramatic battle sequences, exciting dialogue, and unexpected things that you wouldn't normally see in life. Hollywood could sell true history to us, but not to most other people. Personally, I don't think that's a problem. That's what history books and true documentaries are for.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Zac Evans
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
As far as accuracy goes, it could be better, but just think how far we've come from Prince of Thieves. I'd love to see us go further, but I can totally see this as step two of a three part program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My wife and I went to see it this afternoon and I thought it was very well done. Certainly all the equipment was not period but the story was well told and over all it was entertaining. This was, after all, a movie, not a documentary. I did not see the hickory bow but I will concede that there could have been one in there somewhere.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
Last edited by Lin Robinson on Sat 15 May, 2010 2:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Adam D. Kent-Isaac
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
William Hurt was definitely a bright spot - his character was great. (Marshall's weird ring-mail brigandine is another story.)
Weird, though, that the actor who played King John looked like a Persian or a light skinned Pashtun, and not like a Plantagenet with Norman blood. IMDB says he is Guatemalan, French and Israeli. I realize there was a range of phenotypes in Western Europe at that time, but this guy was not believable as a Norman king.
Pastime With Good Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jean-Carle Hudon
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 4:33 pm Post subject: Prince of Persia |
|
|
Adam. if the ethnic incorrectness gets you going, and I understand that it can, how about the guy doing Prince of Persia ?
But now, sticking to the movies in general, and the Prime Directive which has to do with the suspension of disbelief if you are going to enjoy ANY movie at all, I would think that the present re-shaping of an old legend, which is always being re-adapted to the prejudices and values, and politics, of the time frame in which it is re-told, is not that bad.
Magna Carta was the result of civil strife and a baron's revolt,... the new Robin is a disenfranchised baron who's not to happy about the situation.
Alienor of Aquitaine was known for her independant spirit and sexual appetite... who really knew who the father was before DNA? John was the baby of the brood after all.. wink wink nudge nudge..
Do you remember the necessary implication in Braveheart when the Scotsman goes at it with the French Queen who has a very gay english husband... again wink wink nudge nudge...
I say leave reality at the door, but hope that the movie doesn't fall so low as to end up insulting people and creating false pretences as to historicity ( propaganda films).
We once touched upon the low esteem that Mel Gibson seems to have for Englishmen, the latest version of Inglorious Bastards is also another example of pure fiction posing as an alternative version of history, so was the last Arthur movie with Welshmen being replaced by eastern european ''Sarmatians'', and on and on...
In conclusion, enjoy or don't enjoy, but measure it by entertainment standards, it is not re-enactment, and holding up a movie to re-enactment standards is setting it up for inevitable failure.
So, as history goes, this Robin Hood is as good as Braveheart, which was as good as Conan the Barbarian...
Bon coeur et bon bras
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Hooper
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adam D. Kent-Isaac wrote: | | Weird, though, that the actor who played King John looked like a Persian or a light skinned Pashtun, and not like a Plantagenet with Norman blood. IMDB says he is Guatemalan, French and Israeli. I realize there was a range of phenotypes in Western Europe at that time, but this guy was not believable as a Norman king. |
John did not have the typical fair-haired, handsome Plantagenet looks. According to Thomas Costain, he was broad and heavy, almost squat, with a square face and black hair.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Hooper
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: Prince of Persia |
|
|
| Jean-Carle Hudon wrote: |
Do you remember the necessary implication in Braveheart when the Scotsman goes at it with the French Queen who has a very gay english husband... again wink wink nudge nudge...
|
Since Wallace died in 1305 and Edward III was born in 1312, that seems unlikely. There were those who said that his father was really Roger Mortimer (also unlikely, but possible)
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Winn
Location: Salt Lake City Joined: 14 May 2010
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Wow , its amazing to read the posts about robinhood and wonder as a newcomer to this site if any of you ever have any fun in life. Im not going to dispute the historical accuracy of the movie , because I dont care if it was 100% accurate, it was a great movie and for a couple of hours it (accurately or not) took me back to medieval england and I had a he... of a good time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colt Reeves
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most of us have a collection of sharp pointy objects we have a lot of fun playing with. It's when we see the equivalent of the Civil War being fought with M-16s and AK-47s that we get a little tetchy. This isn't an emo forum by any stretch. 
|
|
|
|
|
Adam D. Kent-Isaac
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly the anachronisms didn't bother me so much as the other things I mentioned. I don't mind Braveheart even though it makes the same absurd mistakes with the costumes. At least Braveheart didn't try to cram in a Normandy landing scene, and had the great Patrick McGoohan in it. I like Flesh & Blood even though it does not remotely replicate the clothing, weapons, armor or anything else of the time period.
For costume design in a historical movie, I would say that Joan of Arc (with Ingrid Bergman,) Cromwell, and Barry Lyndon are some of the best.
One of the things about the battle sequences in the latter two films is that the only music during the battles comes from the pipes, drums and bugles actually being played by the army. After watching something like that, and then seeing any modern-day big budget battle movie with its overwrought symphonic soundtrack full of swells and crescendos and choirs, generating (what seems to me) artificial emotions, it seems totally unnecessary in comparison. To me, anyway.
Pastime With Good Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jean-Carle Hudon
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 7:43 pm Post subject: Calendar |
|
|
Roger,
yup, calendars are great tools....but that's where the suspension of disbelief and wink wink nudge nudge come into play...and who says gay englishmen can't sire kids.... I was referring to the movie, not history, nor even probablility, which has nothing to do with movies.
Bon coeur et bon bras
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John Winn wrote: | | Wow , its amazing to read the posts about robinhood and wonder as a newcomer to this site if any of you ever have any fun in life. Im not going to dispute the historical accuracy of the movie , because I dont care if it was 100% accurate, it was a great movie and for a couple of hours it (accurately or not) took me back to medieval england and I had a he... of a good time. |
Oh, welcome to the site and I think if you read all the posts you will see that there are some of us who can take a film as what it is as entertainment and those who are getting a bit side tracked by expecting history to come out of Hollywood.
But also keep in mind that since history is our passion and hobby we may be getting some fun and venting some frustration here which can be the same thing.  
Personally I'm only going to hate the film if I don't like the story or it bores me but that doesn't mean I can't also have fun noting the inaccuracies.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karl Knisley
|
| Posted: Sat 15 May, 2010 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello
I just saw it.It`s the best telling of the story I`ve seen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Sun 16 May, 2010 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adam D. Kent-Isaac wrote: |
For costume design in a historical movie, I would say that Joan of Arc (with Ingrid Bergman,) Cromwell, and Barry Lyndon are some of the best.
|
Barry Lyndon is one of my favorites too. Every frame of the film is an art piece. However, in the scene where Barry and company are fighting from inside a building, it was easy to see breech-loading guns in use. So that one had a bit of inaccuracy too. Cromwell, I thought, was a great movie and everyone in the picture was properly attired and equipped. Of course The Sealed Knot Society participated rather heavily so that helped.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sun 16 May, 2010 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
hmmmm.... some of your posts are making me rethink going to see it this next week. To be honest I have a hard time with people who admit they altered the events for a modern political point. This over all is likely my biggest issue if this really is the case. I have yet to catch him say this but it'd not surprise me if he had.
With the time, money and manpower they dump into these movies they could afford to do it right.... it is a cop out to fall back to the 'could have been defense'. Do the research get the experts to weigh in then make the plot/script/movie.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Sun 16 May, 2010 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | hmmmm.... some of your posts are making me rethink going to see it this next week. To be honest I have a hard time with people who admit they altered the events for a modern political point. This over all is likely my biggest issue if this really is the case. I have yet to catch him say this but it'd not surprise me if he had.
With the time, money and manpower they dump into these movies they could afford to do it right.... it is a cop out to fall back to the 'could have been defense'. Do the research get the experts to weigh in then make the plot/script/movie.
RPM |
Go see it for the entertainment value and do not worry about anything else. It is a good tale, well told. The Magna Carta business is a big stretch but there is a lot of other stuff in the movie that is interesting and well done.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joshua R
|
| Posted: Sun 16 May, 2010 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | | hmmmm.... some of your posts are making me rethink going to see it this next week. To be honest I have a hard time with people who admit they altered the events for a modern political point. This over all is likely my biggest issue if this really is the case. I have yet to catch him say this but it'd not surprise me if he had. |
The only political point I saw was, "Yay, institutionally-protected freedoms! Boo, divine right of kings!"
| Quote: | With the time, money and manpower they dump into these movies they could afford to do it right.... it is a cop out to fall back to the 'could have been defense'. Do the research get the experts to weigh in then make the plot/script/movie.
RPM |
I wonder about the money they spend on these things. I mean, yeah, we know they're expensive. Yeah, we know they are always a huge gamble to make. But then they do things like recycle props, from one movie to the next or even within the same movie (anyone else notice that all the kite/heater shields in Kingdom of Heaven were the same shield, just with different heraldry?). Use plastic (on hero pieces) and aluminum (on extras) for maille instead of steel, as a matter of expense, not merely of weight. In Kingdom of Jerusalem they reused two locations multiple times, each time standing in for something else... the Kerak and Jerusalem sets were both the same set, for instance, and the hospice location/set was reused three times, if I recall, each time standing in for a different place.
So, yeah. Movies are definitely expensive affairs, but they cannot always go all out, even when or if the director and/or producers want to. Someday, I'm sure we'll see a director/producer like George Lucas or Peter Jackson who wants to go all out and do an almost documentary-like historical epic, but until that happens....
" For Augustus, and after him Tiberius, more interested in establishing and increasing their own power than in promoting the public good, began to disarm the Roman people (in order to make them more passive under their tyranny).... "
-N. Machiavelli, The Art of War
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Sun 16 May, 2010 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John Winn wrote: | | Wow , its amazing to read the posts about robinhood and wonder as a newcomer to this site if any of you ever have any fun in life. Im not going to dispute the historical accuracy of the movie , because I dont care if it was 100% accurate, it was a great movie and for a couple of hours it (accurately or not) took me back to medieval england and I had a he... of a good time. |
Some people like Medieval Times and US Renaissance Faires and Captial One Barbarians, and to them that is a trip back to Medieval England as you put it. To me, that isn't so much a trip back to "Ye Olde Englande" as it is a trip into a medieval themed Wal-Mart or Chuck-E-Cheeze ... and some people just don't find that kind of stuff entertaining... maybe it looks more that way if you know a bit about the real thing, but I tended to like the films I know now were more realistic even before I knew any history (maybe that's why I got into history eventually). The kind of history Hollywood gives is more like the half-hearted fantasy of a retarded child. For me, this isn't fun:
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/arc...acy_un.jpg
I don't think it has to do with demanding "re-enactment standards" for my entertainment; to me, the problem is they are actually using re-enactment standards, ala a typical US Ren Faire. I just don't find that interesting. It's the "historical" equivalent of learning Klingon. I really don't want to learn Klingon, it just doesn't grab me, and it doesn't qualify as an escape, to the contrary it just feels like another turn in the mediocrity habitrail. It's not that I don't like fantasy, or speculative fiction or whatever, it's that I don't like it when it's dumbed-down to the level of an imbecile -and when they make a film which costs more money than the annual operating budget of my entire city, but make no effort whatsoever to tell a decent story with it, that is a drag.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Sun 16 May, 2010 8:29 pm; edited 5 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Sun 16 May, 2010 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joshua R wrote: | | So, yeah. Movies are definitely expensive affairs, but they cannot always go all out, even when or if the director and/or producers want to. Someday, I'm sure we'll see a director/producer like George Lucas or Peter Jackson who wants to go all out and do an almost documentary-like historical epic, but until that happens.... |
This is another false dichotomy which boils my blood. Realistic doesn't mean pedantic detail. That is not the point, it means being vaguely in the ball-park of real or even plausible. In fact if they could blow the realism completely out of the water but still tell a pretty good story, I can buy that. I liked Conan, and I liked the 1970's film "Excalibur"; neither of which had any historical value whatsoever, they were campy but they were pretty good yarns. I didn't get that feeling from Kingdom of Heaven or First Knight or the Kevin Costner Robin Hood. Or most Hollywood period films.
The problem isn't that they used the wrong kind of stitching in the underwear, ok? It's that they made everything ridiculous, on every level, the locations, the main characters, the fundamental events, the setting, the plot etc.. I don't want to see Winston Churchill fighting in the Revolutionary war. It derails the whole context for me.
If someone makes a film about some purely imaginary made - up place, I welcome it. Can be fun. The reasons they base films on historical eras is often because there are stories better than anything they can come up with out of thin air. But what they tend to do is just borrow the credibility of some old story, and make a completely half-baked derivation of it which doesn't even make any sense. It's essentially a bait and switch, and it's not a matter of money, it's a matter of competence and respect for the audience, of which big-Hollywood has none because they know their audiences will buy anything they grind out with sufficient promotion (and if there is a cool trailer). And then we'll even rationalize about how bad it was after we've been ripped off.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Sun 16 May, 2010 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To be fair it seems to me that we have to ask who or what kind of person was the real Robin Hood or King Arthur or if they even existed. It is, after all, pretty tricky to be authentic when the character is fictional. Now the question becomes authentic to what?
I pretty much gave up my desire for authentic detail in movies a long time ago and decided to relax and enjoy the story. I have to admit that cheesy inaccuracies bother me but I don't sweat the small stuff so to speak.
I have seen some pretty funny things in movies from time to time. I was once watching a Clint Eastwood spaghetti western on a VCR and managed to stop the film at the perfect time to see that smoke came out of his revolver barrel before the hammer fell on the cartridge or primer. I thought that was special. I really liked the leather bikini/armor that Arthur's love interest wore in the final battle scene in that last Arthur movie too.
I have yet to see the most recent Robin Hood but I plan to watch it and try to enjoy it and not overly concern myself with details of authenticity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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