| Author |
Message |
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
 Posted: Sun 28 Jan, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Actually, I wouldn't think a swordsman of Boromir's skill initially defeating a hundred Orcs strictly unrealistic. Unlike the movie, the book did not give an interpretation of how he fought, and I've always pictured it as a more fluid fight where he's running this way and that, engaging only a few Orcs at a time--not like the movie scene where he essentially stood his ground and tried to beat the Orcs off (which is not a good approach, as anyone who has tried tactical swordsmanship scenarios would testify). |
That is more how I picture the fight, though the pile of orcs by his feat could be considered support for the idea that he didn't move around too much.
Either way, I think it's a feat well beyond any warrior yet born. In serious texts, one man beating two or three is considered quite impressive. Musashi had one beating ten as a goal. I don't think it gets any higher than that, unless the one man has some overwhelming advantage in equipment.
In that sense, it's unrealistic. I'm fine with that; I like that. Boromir is a warrior of legend. He should be superior to the real warriors of history.
| Quote: | | Well it may not be realistic for a human, but Gandalf is not human. He has great powers, lest you forget. |
As noted above, I'm fine with superhuman skill and power. However, when it comes to fighting, I think that superiority should be established as extension of realistic martial techniques. I'd have no problem with Gandalf moving like the wind, striking down foes left and right while avoiding their blows. But spinning around with sword and staff just looks silly. I doubt enhanced strength or speed (which is quite physically possible, by the way) would make such a technique useful.
Of course, doing this in movies would require some sort of collaboration between computer programmers and living martial artists. Eventually, it should be possible to simulate combat fairly realisticly. Once you had such a model, you could then try to determine what techniques would be best for someone with superhuman abilities.
Needless to say, that type of thing is quite a few years down the road...
| Quote: | | I think the fact that Lord of the Rings takes place in an entirely different universe gives them enough leeway to make up for any unrealistic arms and armor. |
I don't agree. Fantasy doesn't many anything does. The has to be reason things are different from reality.
The worst example of Hollywood weapon design is giant flail the Witch-King used in one hand, while holding a big sword in the other. Oddly enough, the screenwriter, knew, consciously or not, that the weapon was unwieldy in the extreme. The movie Witch-King would have had trouble hitting the broad side of a barn. He missed Eowyn over and over again. In the book, using a simple, though probably fairly heavy, mace, he struck her with his first swing.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Jan, 2007 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ah. The mace changing into a flail. I nearly missed that. And the image I had of Eowyn from the book was rather more desperate, more defiant, less inclined to show her fear no matter how much she felt--although, that being said, the movie portrayal of her is fairly reasonable in itself except for the part about cutting elephant legs. I have a hard time believing that Rohirrim horses that were not trained to fight elephants would not run away at the first sight of the Mumakil, let alone being brave enough to get between their legs. Both Hellenistic and Indian accounts of elephant warfare made it clear that one of the elephants' most important uses was as an anti-cavalry system and that horses had to be extensively trained if they were to be made brave enough to face elephants, much in the way that later horses would have had to be trained to not fear the noise of gunpowder weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Jan, 2007 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | Actually, I wouldn't think a swordsman of Boromir's skill initially defeating a hundred Orcs strictly unrealistic. Unlike the movie, the book did not give an interpretation of how he fought, and I've always pictured it as a more fluid fight where he's running this way and that, engaging only a few Orcs at a time--not like the movie scene where he essentially stood his ground and tried to beat the Orcs off (which is not a good approach, as anyone who has tried tactical swordsmanship scenarios would testify). And once the first dozen or so orcs were down it's not implausible that the rest might have considered him unbeatable in close combat and fled away from him.
|
One guy, against a hundred guys? I don't care how incompetent these Orcs are supposed to be (which is another issue)If you cloned Paris Hilton a hundred times and gave the Parii swords, and you were the best fencer in the world, you would still be killed. I'm sorry. Thats Kung Fu movie stuff.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Jan, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Martin Wilkinson wrote: | | Yes, things were changed, and yes, that means it's not totally accurate to the source material, but it's 100% accurate to the feel, heart and themes of the source material. |
Accurate to the feel, heart, and feel of the source material? I wouldn't say so. There's way too much romance and too much of the "cool Legolas" while the darker aspects and the brooding sense of danger in the book didn't get conveyed properly enough--in my opinion.
Of course, everyone will appreciate the movie and the book in different ways. I'm just saying that, for me, the movies were quite good by motion-picture standards but didn't quite manage to deliver the book's powerful sense of wonder. |
Thats a good way of putting it, thats pretty much how I felt. I would add that it just didn't have the same feeling of ... I don't know almost like racial memory, from the way he tied in the mythology... a sense of a direct tie to a mysterious and terrible past...
and nobody can seem to do Tolkein elves right, I think D&D may have ruined that forever.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Jan, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
One guy, against a hundred guys? I don't care how incompetent these Orcs are supposed to be (which is another issue)If you cloned Paris Hilton a hundred times and gave the Parii swords, and you were the best fencer in the world, you would still be killed. I'm sorry. Thats Kung Fu movie stuff.
J |
Under special circumstances like one guy defending a narrow bridge or pass were the hundred can only come at him one or two at a time and more than two get into each others way a single very good warrior with sword or polearm could hold for a long time.
There are some historic precedents for it I think even if the numbers got a little inflated in the telling.
Fatigue and exhaution being the limiting factor or arrows and other missiles.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Jan, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There seems to be a couple of threads here...
I was not very pleased either with how the movies ended up. Directors take too much artistic licenses when making books into movies, in my opinion, but they make enough money to do whatever they want. The only movie that I have seen that was better than the book was Last of the Mohicans. I wish more movies-from-books were like the first three Harry Potter movies. Though material had been deleted to make the story suitable for a motion picture, no material had been added and everything was depicted just as it was in the book.
As for heroic feats, check out 2 Samuel 23:8-12 (yes, in the Bible)
"These are the names of David's mighty men:
Josheb-Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite, was chief of the Three; he raised his spear against eight hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter. Next to him was Eleazar son of Dodai the Ahohite. As one of the three mighty men, he was with David when they taunted the Philistines gathered at Pas Dammim for battle. Then the men of Israel retreated, but he stood his ground and struck down the Philistines till his hand grew tired and froze to the sword. The LORD brought about a great victory that day. The troops returned to Eleazar, but only to strip the dead. Next to him was Shammah son of Agee the Hararite. When the Philistines banded together at a place where there was a field full of lentils, Israel's troops fled from them. But Shammah took his stand in the middle of the field. He defended it and struck the Philistines down, and the LORD brought about a great victory."
Then in Judges 3:31
"After Ehud came Shamgar son of Anath, who struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad. He too saved Israel."
And everyone's favorite, Samson (Judges 15:15)
"Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men."
Pretty impossible stuff, huh. But it's in the Bible. Talk about heroes.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard R.
|
| Posted: Tue 30 Jan, 2007 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ah yes. I am only dissapointed I did not mention it first.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 30 Jan, 2007 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: | "Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men."
Pretty impossible stuff, huh. But it's in the Bible. Talk about heroes. |
Yah and Gilgamesh slew the Demon Humbaba in the Cedar forest, and Thor slew a thousand men every time he threw his hammer. Krsna annihilated a million Rakshassah with a wave of his hand.
If you take mythology or religion as history then we are talking on a whole 'nother level. Most historians don't even take Roman or Greek eyewitness observers at face value without archeological cross verification (a lot of Historians now days are taking this so far as to deny the very existence of the 'Celts' as such...)
I won't go that far but personally I'm going to stick with sources which have at least some cross-verification. 
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Tue 30 Jan, 2007 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think of LOTR as being fairly epic. It may not be mythology, but it does seem to fit with other stories such as the Iliad or Gilgamesh. I think some of the literature in the Bible fits right in there too. I think we are talking about two different things; there is not any cross verification to LOTR.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Blaydoe
Location: Maryland Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Tue 30 Jan, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Lafayette C Curtis"] | Tim M. wrote: | | And of course I don't know where they got the idea of Arwen surrendering her immortality to Frodo... |
Well, actually, Arwen DOES offer Frodo her priviledge to sail west, not necessarily her "immortality" in the book. I just finished re-reading it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jan, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah. I wasn't speaking clearly enough, then. In the book, Arwen offered Frodo the privilege of the elder races after his great deed of bringing the ring to Mordor. What I don't get is why the movie brought this forward and had her surrendering her immortality to Frodo at the Ford of Bruinen--where she wasn't even present in the book.
I really wish they had followed the book and put Glorfindel there instead!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson
Location: Upper Hutt, New Zealand Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 395
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jan, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think the fact that Lord of the Rings takes place in an entirely different universe gives them enough leeway to make up for any unrealistic arms and armor. |
Actually Lord of the Rings is set in our world prior to recorded history. That was Tolkiens intent and he considered every detail in his writing to acheive this. Many of which the film makers completely ignored.
I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, but that which it protects. (Faramir, The Two Towers)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Allen
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jan, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul Watson wrote: | | Quote: | | I think the fact that Lord of the Rings takes place in an entirely different universe gives them enough leeway to make up for any unrealistic arms and armor. |
Actually Lord of the Rings is set in our world prior to recorded history. That was Tolkiens intent and he considered every detail in his writing to acheive this. Many of which the film makers completely ignored. |
I do seem to recall some scholar or tolkein biographer stating in an interviw at one point that Tolkein wrote 'The Lord of the Rings" as a sort of "modern, somewhat alternate, mythology for Britain."
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Blaydoe
Location: Maryland Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jan, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: Big Honkin' Flails |
|
|
[quote="Benjamin H. Abbott"] | Quote: | | The worst example of Hollywood weapon design is giant flail the Witch-King used in one hand, while holding a big sword in the other. Oddly enough, the screenwriter, knew, consciously or not, that the weapon was unwieldy in the extreme. The movie Witch-King would have had trouble hitting the broad side of a barn. He missed Eowyn over and over again. In the book, using a simple, though probably fairly heavy, mace, he struck her with his first swing. |
If you get the special edition DVDs, in the bonus features, there is a lengthy discussion about the flail. PJ simply wanted it to be as honkin' big as possible, in fact he specifically wanted it to look unwieldy, to evoke a feeling of extreme menace and emphasize the otherworldly power of the Witch King. He just wanted it to look MEAN.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jan, 2007 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | PJ simply wanted it to be as honkin' big as possible, in fact he specifically wanted it to look unwieldy, to evoke a feeling of extreme menace and emphasize the otherworldly power of the Witch King. He just wanted it to look MEAN. |
Well, he screwed up. Looking incompetent isn't scary. It doesn't suggest otherwordly power, only otherwordly stupidity. The Witch-King's fight with Eowyn was the worst of it, but Jackson started undermining the Nazgul in the first movie. Aragorn beating them all in that swordfight was horrible, and having them stab pillows as they did also looked pretty silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Allen
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jan, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Quote: | | PJ simply wanted it to be as honkin' big as possible, in fact he specifically wanted it to look unwieldy, to evoke a feeling of extreme menace and emphasize the otherworldly power of the Witch King. He just wanted it to look MEAN. |
Well, he screwed up. Looking incompetent isn't scary. It doesn't suggest otherwordly power, only otherwordly stupidity. The Witch-King's fight with Eowyn was the worst of it, but Jackson started undermining the Nazgul in the first movie. Aragorn beating them all in that swordfight was horrible, and having them stab pillows as they did also looked pretty silly. |
In Jackson's defense(?), the "stabbing-the-pillows" scene is taken almost exactly from the old 1970s animated film of LotR. And, if I recall, Strider and the Hobbits (or was it technically Butterbur and his employees? I forget the details) actually do "decoy" the ringwraiths by stuffing pillows and mop-heads under the covers in the room the Hobbits were supposed to have been in in the book.
(edit: added "in the book to the end)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Feb, 2007 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's either Hob or Nob--and yes, the perpetrator of that decoy job was a Hobbit in Butterbur's employ. Not one of the four travelers, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Densmore
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Feb, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find it interesting that little if any consideration has been given to the fact that the vast majority of people who watched the film would have been highly ignorant of the history and use of arms.
To that end, I think the battle scenes were well done. They weren't realistic, but to an uninformed observer, they certainly were breathtaking and captured a very powerful overall feeling (sorry for the clumsy wordage there).
Anyone who has studied anything can pick apart the flaws in that area from a film, tv show, or movie. They're entertainment, not historical recreation of documentation. As such, they are, IMHO, designed to appeal to the mass-market.
To be fair, if they had taken the time and effort to study and accurately portray the use of weapons in the film, most people either wouldn't have noticed, or would have thought "that's not how it's done", having been educated solely by Hollywood.
I realize this probably comes across as a defence of the Hollywoodization of swordfighting, which is a bane to all who study it. This is not intended. I agree that with Tolkien's reputation as a stickler for what he wrote being exactly what he intended, the movies are lacking. But as simple entertainment, they were quite well done.
And back to J.R.R. Tolkien: Has anyone here heard of his new book?
The Children of Hurin
(sorry for the ads)
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Toton
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Feb, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony Densmore wrote: | To that end, I think the battle scenes were well done. They weren't realistic, but to an uninformed observer, they certainly were breathtaking and captured a very powerful overall feeling (sorry for the clumsy wordage there).
Anyone who has studied anything can pick apart the flaws in that area from a film, tv show, or movie. They're entertainment, not historical recreation of documentation. As such, they are, IMHO, designed to appeal to the mass-market. |
Certainly true. I watch movies to be entertained, not educated. Dramatic over-the-top combat choreography comes with the territory. Granted, much of the lack of realism in films is unnecessary, and could easily be avoided by just paying a couple of consultants and actually taking their advice. This is true of just about anything in films, not just combat and arms. I think there is, however, a lack of consideration for realistic portrayals when the filmmakers know that 99% of the audience will not be well educated about the subject matter.
Take for example the TV series "24". They almost never portray technology and computers realistically. But they take shortcuts that keep the story moving. I end up rolling my eyes very frequently, but I still enjoy the show.
It's just a shame that a lot of people don't learn to become healthy skeptics, and end up actually believing what they see in fictional works.
-Ed T. Toton III
ed.toton.org | ModernChivalry.org
My armor photos on facebook
|
|
 |
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Feb, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ed Toton wrote: | | Anthony Densmore wrote: | To that end, I think the battle scenes were well done. They weren't realistic, but to an uninformed observer, they certainly were breathtaking and captured a very powerful overall feeling (sorry for the clumsy wordage there).
Anyone who has studied anything can pick apart the flaws in that area from a film, tv show, or movie. They're entertainment, not historical recreation of documentation. As such, they are, IMHO, designed to appeal to the mass-market. |
Certainly true. I watch movies to be entertained, not educated. Dramatic over-the-top combat choreography comes with the territory. Granted, much of the lack of realism in films is unnecessary, and could easily be avoided by just paying a couple of consultants and actually taking their advice. This is true of just about anything in films, not just combat and arms. I think there is, however, a lack of consideration for realistic portrayals when the filmmakers know that 99% of the audience will not be well educated about the subject matter.
Take for example the TV series "24". They almost never portray technology and computers realistically. But they take shortcuts that keep the story moving. I end up rolling my eyes very frequently, but I still enjoy the show.
It's just a shame that a lot of people don't learn to become healthy skeptics, and end up actually believing what they see in fictional works. |
With all due respect, I really don't buy this argument and I think it is a cop-out. It has been used for decades to excuse what Hollywood does with historical and (arguably) pseudo or quasi historical subjects like this.
Why ? Because having seen about a thousand movies in this ball park, I have yet to see fantasy kit and / or Hollywood martial arts techniques which look better than the real thing, with the possible exception of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. (And even there I was probably impressed only because I haven't seen real Kung Fu)
Swords with serrations and huge spikes sticking out of them, helmets with enormous horns, armor with huge spiked shoulder pads and rhinestones, flips, knockout bonks on armored heads, spinning back-kicks, any number of other fight cliches which have already been mentioned in this thread, look awful to me, not just because I know a bit about historical arms and armor and / or WMA / HEMA, but because it is trite, overdone ,and OBVIOUSLY ridiculous even if you know nothing about it. I hadn't done my tour in the Army when I used to watch the A-Team as a kid, but by age 10 or 11 it was pretty obvious to me it was embarassingly fake.
Before I ever knew anything about historical fencing, when I first saw the famous duel scene in Kirosawas The Seven Samurai around that same age, I knew I was witnessing something special, something which was head and shoulders above every sword and sandals / sword and sorcery or knights in armor flick I had ever seen.
The way that resonated with me, just like seeing real arms and armor in museums and in books and online always has (and fake fantasy stuff never has) is why I got into this in the first place.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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