| Author |
Message |
|
Lin Robinson
|
 Posted: Wed 15 Aug, 2012 4:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Karl Knisley wrote: | Hello
I never read the book,but this thread has me wanting, to check it out. How close to the book, are the characters, from the movie? It was the characters, that made the movie for me. And the one liners
"No boy...this is no day to be close to land"
"If they dont follow us...its too far to swim" |
The movie followed the plot of the book reasonably closely, with one exception being why the Arab was in Russia. The reason hinted at in the movie was because of a woman when he was actually on some sort of diplomatic mission. The characters are the same. The book, of course, developed the characters much better than the movie, any movie, can. A glaring difference between the book and the movie was the Arab's ability to learn the Viking's language. In the book, the Arab had everything translated for him by one of the Vikings who spoke Latin, if I remember correctly. In the movie that would obviously not work so he had to learn Norse over a period of a few days - which is not very likely of course.
Michael Crichton actually directed the movie after the original director was fired. Someone above alluded to the propmaster buying up a lot of armor in a hurry without regard for authenticity. That may have been the result of the change in directors. Movies are supposed to be filmed on a schedule and this one was made on location in Canada which is bound to have been expensive, making staying on schedule vitally important. No time to go shopping for authenticity.
I liked the movie but I loved the book. It is still in my library after over 35 years.
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
|
|
  |
 |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Aug, 2012 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Thought the movie was good, but I absolutely hated the metal breastplate and conquistador style helmet one of the vikings had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Smith
Location: Central CA Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Aug, 2012 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lin Robinson wrote: | | The movie followed the plot of the book reasonably closely, with one exception being why the Arab was in Russia. The reason hinted at in the movie was because of a woman when he was actually on some sort of diplomatic mission. |
I never read the book, but this difference you mentioned doesn't seem to be there. In the movie he says that a jealous husband made a complaint about him to the royalty for being in love with the guy's wife, so they sent him on a diplomatic mission as a form of banishment. So it does specifically state that he was on a diplomatic mission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Aug, 2012 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| D. S. Smith wrote: | | Lin Robinson wrote: | | The movie followed the plot of the book reasonably closely, with one exception being why the Arab was in Russia. The reason hinted at in the movie was because of a woman when he was actually on some sort of diplomatic mission. |
I never read the book, but this difference you mentioned doesn't seem to be there. In the movie he says that a jealous husband made a complaint about him to the royalty for being in love with the guy's wife, so they sent him on a diplomatic mission as a form of banishment. So it does specifically state that he was on a diplomatic mission. |
Yes, but he was, in the book, sent on a diplomatic mission for no other reason than the Caliph sent him on one. In fact he "enjoyed" the wife of a rich merchant in the early passages of the book but did not get caught. The book says the merchant was suspicious and complained to the Caliph, recommending that Ibn Fadlan be sent to visit with the Bulgars as an ambassador which was done. No admission of guilt or overt accusations by the Caliph which resulted in the mission. A fine distinction for sure, and probably not worthy of notice. Any way, never mind. I guess it was because he was fooling around that he wound up in Russia.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Aug, 2012 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
IIRC neither Crichton's book nor Ibn Fadlan's original historical account say why he was on a diplomatic mission. There is no contradiction if the movie specified that it was because of an indiscretion with a woman.
If they needed historical-looking armour all they had to do was to rent/buy some of the PVC mail from WETA. It looks right and is not a burden on the actors. Have a few pieces of metal mail just for the close-ups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Shackleton
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Aug, 2012 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
13th Warrior was filmed at best around the same time as LotR, and in Canada. I'm pretty sure the Weta mail was not available to them at that time.
Ottawa Swordplay
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Aug, 2012 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Didn't even consider that. So has any movie since LOTR used their plastic mail?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Aug, 2012 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Didn't even consider that. So has any movie since LOTR used their plastic mail? |
Just about every one: Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood. Arn etc. I don't know if they got it from WETA but the product is the same.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
 |
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Aug, 2012 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another big fan of the movie, here!
| Johan Gemvik wrote: | | But most of it hardly authentic to the time the movie depicts which is a horrible and needless oversight by the prop department and/or producers since they simply ordered what you see instead of what they could have had for the same money from the same armourer had they just asked for it. What could have been one of the best historical-ish viking movies is reduced to a fantasy blend similar to what we see in WOW today. Why?? For the love of... |
| Craig Shackleton wrote: | | A friend of mine worked at Valentine at the time this movie was made. My recollection of his story is that the props guys basically showed up and purchased every piece of armour in the shop, regardless of period, because they needed it immediately. |
AFAIK, it was not an oversight. They originally had period accurate costumes and weapons, but some execs thought the characters too hard to tell apart, being all dressed in the same broad style (you know, like real people), and ordered a drastic last minute change in costuming, historicity be damned; hence the hurry to just grab whatever was available and the resulting anachronistic mishmash of fashions.
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Smith
Location: Central CA Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Aug, 2012 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: | | AFAIK, it was not an oversight. They originally had period accurate costumes and weapons, but some execs thought the characters too hard to tell apart, being all dressed in the same broad style (you know, like real people), and ordered a drastic last minute change in costuming, historicity be damned; hence the hurry to just grab whatever was available and the resulting anachronistic mishmash of fashions. |
Ah, so the same reason as in Top Gun. Naval aviators of course wear their oxygen masks when flying, but the directors said you couldn't tell the actors apart in the flying scenes if they wore their masks. So to those who know anything about military or flying it looks like negligent attention to detail, but to the average moviegoer it makes the characters more recognizable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Aug, 2012 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | IIRC neither Crichton's book nor Ibn Fadlan's original historical account say why he was on a diplomatic mission. There is no contradiction if the movie specified that it was because of an indiscretion with a woman.
|
Dan, I have to respectfully disagree. The first chapter - The Departure From the City of Peace - states: "...he (the woman's husband) complained to the Caliph, who I know was amused in private and yet compelled to adopt a stern face to the public. Thus when the ruler of the Saqliba asked for a mission from the Caliph, this same spiteful ibn-Quarin (the woman's husband) urged I be sent, and so I was." Sounds like the underlying reason for this was ibn-Fadlan's dalliance with the merchant's wife, even though the Caliph may have sent him any way.
I already admitted to my error in stating that the book did not refer to problems with a jealous husband.
But, I could be wrong.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Marko Susimetsa
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Aug, 2012 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just re-watched this last night and while I have to admit that the story is relatively entertaining, it is nowhere near my list of top favourites. It is above average when it comes to action adventure movies, though.
The weapons and armour really bothered me, as did the fantasy culture that they were battling against. Admittedly, there was bear worship in the ancient days, but it is difficult to believe that they could have hunted down quite such a number of bears to camouflage the vast enemy hordes that we see - let alone pose such a mystical threat to the northmen.
There were good parts in it for sure, such as the viking burial (although this could have been developed a little, showing more), but - overall - it is somewhat disappointing.
|
|
|
|
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Sun 26 Aug, 2012 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Marko Susimetsa wrote: | Just re-watched this last night and while I have to admit that the story is relatively entertaining, it is nowhere near my list of top favourites. It is above average when it comes to action adventure movies, though.
The weapons and armour really bothered me, as did the fantasy culture that they were battling against. Admittedly, there was bear worship in the ancient days, but it is difficult to believe that they could have hunted down quite such a number of bears to camouflage the vast enemy hordes that we see - let alone pose such a mystical threat to the northmen. |
To be fair, they only posed any sort of credible threat to the farmers and villagers. Buliwyf's mere handful of vikings, who, unlike the townsfolk, were professional fighters and equipped as such, naturally proved more than a match for the technologically outclassed Ven despite the latters' overwhelming advantage in numbers. 
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Woodruff
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Coleman M.
|
| Posted: Sun 26 Aug, 2012 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The 13th Warrior is a guilty pleasure of mine. I've watched it loyally since I discovered it somewhere in high school and continue to do so, particularly when I decide it's time to hole up in my little cave with a few bottles of dark beer. It's always pained me that the weapons and armor are so far off from what, historically, should be present, but the dispositions of the actors portraying vikings win me over every time. I still shrug my shoulders cheerfully suggest "Grow stronger!" to anyone who complains of a task being too hard.
As to Eaters of the Dead, I think I enjoyed reading the book even more. I found an old copy of it for 25 cents, and presently keep it in my car, in case I happen to find myself in need of a way to pass time while I'm out and about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross Newcomb
Location: Vancouver,bc,canada Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Sep, 2012 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as the lack of 'Authenticy' in the armour and weapons, that Was due to the changes (3 times) of the
Directorship of the Movie's helm. The original Designer was shooting a 9th C. Historic Viking Movie,
which, when directors changed, wavered. the Last director didn't know what he wanted until he 'saw' it,
then didn't care it was not right in time period. He had everything from Fur and Roman Gladiator to 17thC.
Spanish Conquistador armour. Eventually the legendary Terry English ( armourer of Boorman's 'Excalibur')
came for a week to knock out the final picked main character designs out of Aluminum! and left his sons
to complete the craftings in the subsequent weeks. Even Antonio Banderas' Mail vest was interlinked
custom aluminum wire butt link mail made by a local SCA person 'Zena', her Real name...because even the
6 pound vest was 'too heavy'.
And the Viking Swords were Heavy Cast Rubber! brought from England, were at least 6-7 Pounds, which
Was too heavy!
These things I know since I supply Arms and weapons to the film and T.V. industry here in Vancouver,B.C.
and along with Rob Valentine loaned them Armour for a month while they decided, to have many items
copied and then returned, without rental when Terry came in. They did build some cool stuff, and like
'Pathfinder' the final decision was to make a 'Fantasy' movie, with Historic elements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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