[James A. Vargscarr]

Hi Patrick,

I completely agree that excessive vitriol is never laudable. We rarely flatter ourselves when our distaste for something descends into jeers and barbs; and though some degree of emotional venting is usually considered acceptable amongst like-minded company, I agree that some comments in the thread are nearing that limit.

You make an excellent point about the artistic choice to deviate versus the results of ignorance. I have no problem at all with fantasy, even if it's combined with elements of history. I'm also very fond of The 13th Warrior, despite my dislike for its historical inaccuracies. But I prefer there to be very clear distinction between the fact and the fiction, because in this world if you choose to blur that line, you choose to promote ignorance amongst those who view your film. Much of the armour in Pathfinder is so outlandish that many would consider it an adequate indicator of obvious fiction; but I feel that the line the film seems to walk is too indistinct. Of course I felt this was also the case with The 13th Warrior.

I dislike any fiction that tries to pass itself off as fact or fails to distinguish itself as fantasy; and I feel the same way about misrepresentation of facts by politicians and news reports - though again, I'm more inclined to forgive ignorance than wilful distortion. I'm perfectly willing to admit I lack knowledge of a vast number of topics, both in regard to history and current events - but if I was going to report on them, I'd make damned sure I got my facts as straight as possible. And if I was to tell a story about fictional events that took place on earth in the 14th century, I would make sure the sky was blue and the grass was green, and every other detail of setting represented the reality as closely as possible. If I was playing the visuals straight - in the sense that I was aiming for realism - but decided to make the sky yellow and the grass purple without an explanation inherent in my fiction, I would confuse people at best, and misrepresent my creativity as 14th century fact at worst.

As regards priorities - there are many more important things to do in the world than complain about historical inaccuracy in movies. But many would argue that assisting the starving children that you mentioned ought to come before spending time on message boards devoted to the discussion of ancient arms. I doubt that issues like this one are ranked more highly in the minds of posters than modern social problems, but since thought has no limits I don't see the harm in devoting a measure of it to life's lesser frustrations.

[Peter Fuller]

Patrick; I agree with your statements and your sense of priorities, however allow me to digress a bit. While there are a lot of other things in life that are much more important than pointing out inaccuracies in film treatments of history, for those of us who frequent this and other like websites, the study of history and arms is a passion, and for some of us, a livelihood. As I mentioned earlier, I don't have as much of a problem with a movie that makes no pretence at presenting history accurately, as I do with documentaries that make such a claim, and end up falling short. However, I've lost count of the number of times I've had someone drop into my shop after watching Exaclibur or some other film, and proceed to tell me how much they learned about history from watching the film. I end up spending a lot of time that could be better spent elsewhere trying to re-eductae them, sometimes without sucess, because, afterall, what do I know? I just make amrour for a living, I certainly couldn't know as much as the vaunted filmamkers... you get my meaning. And I do take exception to a film like the latest "King Arthur" (the one with Clive Owen), where the director promoted the film as historically accurate, when nothnig could be further from the truth.

The sad fact is, a lot of people are too lazy to think for themselves, and allow Hollywood to educate them about history. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself; those kinds of people deserve to be misguided, however, as I just mentioned, they usually end up on forums like this, or in armourers shops, or at re-enactment events and proceed to pass themselves off as 'experts', and end up embarassing themselves, or worse, misinforming some member of the public who has come out the event hoping to learn something.

It's like the Victorian 'scholars' who gave such wonderful misconceptions like the idea that armour was so heavy you had to be hoisted onto your horse with a crane. You can still find that idea today presented as truth in books and classrooms everywhere. A hundred and fifty years later, we're still dealing with it; and we don't need Hollywood adding to it.

I've dealt with filmakers before, and the ones I did business with could care less about historical accuracy; they were much more interested in artistic expression. So be it; that's why I no longer do business with filmakers. I can remember writing out reams of notes for a film director who rented a bunch of armour from me for a museum scene, only to discover when I went to see the film that he completely disregarded everything I prepared for him. It wouldn't have been such a big deal, if he hadn't told me that he wanted the 'museum' scene to be accurate and authentic.

You're right, Patrick, there are a lot more important things to rant and rave about than the accuracy of Hollywood films. However, when they begin to affect my business, I think I should be allowed to rant - just a little bit.

[Patrick Kelly]

James & Peter,

All very good points, and since I just spent my entire day serving and protecting (didn't find any starving kids though) I think I've earned the right to waste a few minutes on a disscusion board.

Since things seem to always be taken in the extreme black and white end in cyberspace I suppose I should clarify my point. I don't believe I said that people should shut up and quit voicing their opinion. If you don't like this particular movie that's fine. I'll tell you right now I don't like it just from seeing the trailer and I know historical accuracy when I see it in the particular period being portrayed. Seeing it would obviously be something of a jaw clenching experience for me. However, there comes a point where we step over the line from simply not liking a product to thinking the world as we know it is about to end because of that product. Tht kind of viewpoint does no one any good. That's all I'm trying to say. That's my final comment on the matter.

Now I'm off to pull a burning baby from a building or something so I can log on again later tonight.

[Bryce Felperin]

Just read a review for the is movie. I think the reviewer tells it straight...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/...ype=movies

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Jean,
I'm not sure about this, it might be an urban legend, but apparently people who do play the proposed drinking game have the privilege of reading the subliminal message in the credits at the end, which reads '' any resemblance to anybody historical, living or dead, from this planet or any other which may be discovered in years to come, is unintentional and purely coincidental'', apparently no one has sued the studio as yet... things like that sure do hurt the lawyer trade !
cheers to all, and yes I also cried in pure despair after Arthur, not a welshman in the whole lot, Sarmatians, yeah, that'll do it , Sarmatians on Hadrian's wall, and saxons invading through pictland, and Gwenhyvar half naked shooting a great war bow, why do these people even pretend to give historically connected names or concepts to their films... just number them : fantasy film no. 12, fantasy film no. 26, fantasy film no. 6... oh no, that one has erotic content, and so on. Who knows , in the next remake of the Alamo we may have Karim Al Boustipha teaching the Tennessee volunteers how to aim their muskets at the Mexicans after Ali Ben Afnam gives his rousing speech on patriotism to keep the texans from running away...man, those Sarmatians do get around, do you remember them in Flags of our Fathers....wait for the next remake.
JCH

[Eric S.]

In one of my history classes we watched a few scenes from The Patriot. The discussion consisted mostly of all the inaccuracies and the significance of that for the viewers. The main problem I see with this sort of thing is that when people take in information, unless they make a conscious effort they don't remember the source. Your average movie viewer simply isn't going to make the effort. So excepting people who read a lot of history it ends up that people's knowledge is composed of a disorganized jumble of facts from numerous sources--most of them crap.

This seems to be the way people get the idea that swords weigh 40 pounds and knights are lumbering man-tanks. T.H. White's "The Once and Future King" perpetuates those myths like none other--thank you high school english classes. Point is that even sources that don't claim to be history are taken as historical fact by a lot of people.

[Martin Whalen]

My gosh, I have just seen the preview and I actually made a face of disgust at one point, I very rarely do that, but this movie hit a nerve. I have never been so annoyed and insulted after seeing a movie trailer, how many years before people of European decent stop putting up with this, we are proud of our ancestry to ya know...I need to hit something...

Oh my gosh, no words, no words, I need to go now.

[Mikael Ranelius]

If you think "Pathfinder" sucks you're not alone. The Norwegian-Saami director Nils Gaup who made the original movie "Pathfinder" (Ofelas/Veiviseren) in 1987 (a really great movie btw) have stated that this 2007 movie is a sickening celebration of violence, and has nothing to do with the original Saami tale which featured i nthe original movie

[Jason C. D.]

Truly the norsemen had other attributes...but of course the one that mostly comes to the ordinary mind is VIOLENT! It's a Hollywood movie which, correct me if I'm wrong, shovels there movies to the general public...It ain't no independent production about Gurt and his undying love for Giselda. It could actually be an entertaining flick though, I mean don't tell you SWORD lovers are put off by a bit of violence.

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I think you are right on the money with a lot of that, the movie looks ridculous in that particular (frankly racist) cultural assumption, not to mention all of the kit is totally retarded crap, makes Xena look historical. I'm not going to be paying any admission price to see that imbecilic WWF [expletive deleted]. I doubt I'll even sit through it on cable. Looks like something the Sci Fi channel would do on a bad day.

[Chad Arnow]

Jean,
Terms like "bull***t" are unnecessary and unwelcome on this forum. Leave them out of your posts.

For everyone else,
Please don't rant, especially about something as trivial as a Hollywood movie. Save your energy and posts for more worthwhile discussions.

Thank you.

[Joe Fults]

[Dan Howard]

FWIW I thought that 13th Warrior was wonderful. I have watched it countless times dispite its inaccuracies. It is great fun. I'll probably think the same thing about 300 when I get around to seeing it. These movies are no worse than the dribble on the History Channel. And unlike the HC they don't pretend to be "historically accurate" or "educational"

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Bryce Felperin]

[Carl Croushore]

[Stephen S. Han]

I also saw the movie recently. And my guess is that overwhelming majority, if not most, of the folks who blast this movie for its historical inaccuracies have not bothered to see the movie. Ya see, in the prologue of this movie it says something like, "500 years before Columbus men have tried to conquer the New Land...Something stopped them...What follows is the LEGEND" [emphasis mine]

*Sigh* Not only does the movie not represent itself as a historically accurate depiction, it further goes on to disclaim that it's a LEGEND! [emphasis mine] Presumably story told in bigger than life fashion in biased point of view. Narrative structure. We need to pay attention to that. I swear sometimes my fellow history geeks need to get a grip.

That said, the movie was an excretable mess. First the postive (unfortunately a very short section). Parts of it were beautifully photographed. The landscape scenes and the colors (muted grey washed in sharp contrast) gave it a surreal, legendish quality to it.

Now the negatives.

--Many scenes were heavily borrowed, if not outright stolen, from other movies, most notably Conan the Barbarian.

--Action choreography and editing were annoyingly choppy.

--Zero character development...for any character

--Pacing was uneven, and excruciatingly slow at times, a fatal flaw in a mindless action film.

--Out-loud-laughter inducing dialogue.

--Foreshadowing of events that were driven at the audience with a sledge hammer...repeatedly. Yes, I got it, that scene was significant, it's going to come up later at a crucial moment...

And so on and so forth...

[Ransom Prestridge]

I also made the mistake of seeing it last weekend and, though my comments will no doubt be superfluous, it was indeed terrible. I’m working on a book and so I take the time whenever I see any kind of story, whether it be a novel or film, and see what works and what doesn’t. Pretty much nothing in this film worked from a narrative standpoint! They give you plenty of cliché depictions of the serene people, and our mostly nameless hero (his name, “Ghost,” was mentioned once in the whole film, I believe) was shown playing with kids and being peaceful despite his (gasp/shock) conflicted soul, not sure which world he belongs in. Maybe the reason I didn’t really care about any character at all was because the story was so cliché that it was convention-overload.

And you’re right, Stephen, that plenty of it was borrowed, a lot from Conan. Did you notice the stock avalanche footage that they stuck in at the end? It was painfully obvious to me and the others I saw it with.

I didn’t go to see a historical movie—at most I imagined this to be a fantasy film placed in a recognizable setting—but even as a sword-slashing fantasy it failed. The fighting was pretty terrible at best, and as Stephen said, choppy and unclear. And this is DESPITE heavy use of slow-motion. It's probably a good example of how too much slo-mo simply muddles clarity.

I actually sort of looked forward to Clancy Brown being in the film, as he’s been a favorite “chameleon” actor of mine for a long time. Alas, even he couldn’t save it...

[James Barker]

Age old argument of history vs. Hollywood. Well this movie is flopping worst than I expected and I say good. People might not know what is wrong with Kingdom of Heaven but they are not so stupid as to think that Pathfinder has any history in it.

The movie looked like a POS in every way and I for one am glad the studio is going to lose money on this drek.