View Full Version : Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video
Antonivs Silvicola
09/06/10, 22:08
I quit deadliest warrior after the centurion versus rajput. Im taking nothing away from the rajput but a pick axe instead of his shield as a weapon? (see Spartan),. I couldnt take anymore absurdity. Just my opinion. Worth less than two cents.
Please ooh god please at least give the celt a sword at least that!!
Heh, you are giving this show too much credit...a "Giant Celtic spiked club" seems more likely....:clown:
"the persian immortal: the Ninja style elite forces of the persian empire, specializing in the arts of asian stealth, and wearing scary Asian style masks. the Celt: naked warriors on LSD, with undone hari, charging like a madman into the enemy, armed only with a stone age club" :clown:
They'll probably manage to be racist towards both Celts and Persians. That's at least some kind of achievement...
They'll probably manage to be racist towards both Celts and Persians. That's at least some kind of achievement...
well, that would be the dumbest thing since when they declared the stinger an innefective stunning weapon. (yes, that really did happen; I don't know how anyone can say this, but they did.). I actually spent an hour trying to convince mom of the stupidity of the show-she being uneducated in the art of actually testing things :wall:
and that riled Noah Antwiler so much, he made a commentary trashing the whole show with his brother, Miles. (6th of may entry) (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2010/05/06/vlog-5-6-10-the-deadliest-warrior/#comments)
he's also making a spoof show, called "DEADLIEST CHARACTER", featuring megazoid v. mechagodzilla, with commentary from Linkara and the angry video game nerd :clown:
Badass Buddha
10/06/10, 03:34
"the persian immortal: the Ninja style elite forces of the persian empire, specializing in the arts of asian stealth, and wearing scary Asian style masks.:
RiffTrax describes them as "Really, pre-ninja ninjas, in pre-kabuki kabuki masks, and using pre-samurai samurai swords".
RiffTrax describes them as "Really, pre-ninja ninjas, in pre-kabuki kabuki masks, and using pre-samurai samurai swords".
LOL!!
rifftrax: you can never go wrong with them :laugh4:
Power2the1
10/06/10, 23:03
I really hope the Celt is from the La Tene Iron Age, not A.D. eras in Ireland, or Scotland. The Immortal team vs. the Celt team, if done right, should be a rather good show.
Phalanx300
11/06/10, 13:32
On Deadliest Warrior wikia pictures of both have been posted.
Good thing:
-B.C. period Celt.
Bad Things:
-Completely naked with only an scarf before private parts
-Uses wooden club and most likely an axe as well
-Lack of any armour, should have went with top of Celtic warrior society
Accuracy is totally gone and nowhere to be seen.
Hannibal Khan the Great
11/06/10, 21:40
On Deadliest Warrior wikia pictures of both have been posted.
Good thing:
-B.C. period Celt.
Bad Things:
-Completely naked with only an scarf before private parts
-Uses wooden club and most likely an axe as well
-Lack of any armour, should have went with top of Celtic warrior society
Accuracy is totally gone and nowhere to be seen.
I don't know, those Gaesatae were pretty tough! But the biggest piece of blasphemy came when they did that Viking vs. Samurai episode...
On Deadliest Warrior wikia pictures of both have been posted.
Good thing:
-B.C. period Celt.
Bad Things:
-Completely naked with only an scarf before private parts
-Uses wooden club and most likely an axe as well
-Lack of any armour, should have went with top of Celtic warrior society
Accuracy is totally gone and nowhere to be seen.
just as I predicted-I am so awesome :clown:
but what about the immortals?
EDIT: just saw it :sick: (no, he wasn't dressed like an Asian)
and to add insult to injury:
Versus... the Celtic Warrior, barbarian who helped bring about the fall of Rome. WHO IS DEADLIEST?
I'm in pain...
Badass Buddha
11/06/10, 23:15
I don't know, those Gaesatae were pretty tough!
If they get the dude hopped up on drugs, it might be worth watching.
That hurts.
Predictions!! (Yeah im that bored, the first football matches in South Africa were not funny)
So, i saw this guy in youtube, he surely knows what hes talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXWs9ZmYPhc
TancredTheNorman
12/06/10, 05:43
I have some nominations for most accurate.
Cadfael, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (not strictly accurate, but that would have been able to pass muster in the Roman Theatre), and Foyle's War (again not strictly accurate, but it does what it intends).
Deadliest Warrior should next do
Legions vs Terror birds and other post dinosaur historical monsters from Earth's past
Hoplites especially Spartans vs Dinosaurs
Am I really pushing it? Afterall what is a mere few hundred years compared to millions? On the other hand the entire show is pointless.
Edit-At least Deadliest Warrior is good compared to Blood and Sand, or Mel Gibson's Blood and Blood (Apocylypto).
On Deadliest Warrior wikia pictures of both have been posted.
Good thing:
-B.C. period Celt.
Bad Things:
-Completely naked with only an scarf before private parts
-Uses wooden club and most likely an axe as well
-Lack of any armour, should have went with top of Celtic warrior society
Accuracy is totally gone and nowhere to be seen.
Wow... that's awful.
At least tell me that at the end, Hannibal Barca the giant black man who wielded dual falcatas gets to come out and slay the winner...
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/03/09/alg_battles.jpg
http://www.history.co.uk/shows/battles-bc/season-1/gallery/carouselGallery/0/assetPhotos/05/image/Battles-9.jpg
Mother mercy.... im gonna shoot myself.
Oh well its Histeria Channel after all, 100% iztorikal akurait, always.
Wow... that's awful.
At least tell me that at the end, Hannibal Barca the giant black man who wielded dual falcatas gets to come out and slay the winner...
Yuck. Though technically that guy isn't black, but Imazigh (at least that's what he looks like). While this would be geographically correct, I think we can safely assume that the actual Hannibal, being from Carthie nobility, was a "white" Semitic guy (although History Channel would never get the difference between Semitic and North African people...). A picture of Ariel Sharon would have been more accurate :laugh4:
Note to the producers and fans of Deadliest Warriors:
This (https://i.imagehost.org/t/0027/batoroi_boii.jpg) is a Celt, not this (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Neandertaler_reconst.jpg) or this (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Brave_mel.jpg). Also, not this (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Predator_%281987%29_-_The_Predator.jpg).
But, but they were barbarians, and everyone knows barbarians looked like this!
http://goremasterfx.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/conan.jpg
But, but they were barbarians, and everyone knows barbarians looked like this!
http://goremasterfx.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/conan.jpg
"gya'uhkh! you brok my fater's Swwooord!!" :jester:
Yuck. Though technically that guy isn't black, but Imazigh (at least that's what he looks like). While this would be geographically correct, I think we can safely assume that the actual Hannibal, being from Carthie nobility, was a "white" Semitic guy (although History Channel would never get the difference between Semitic and North African people...). A picture of Ariel Sharon would have been more accurate :laugh4:
Note to the producers and fans of Deadliest Warriors:
This (https://i.imagehost.org/t/0027/batoroi_boii.jpg) is a Celt, not this (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Neandertaler_reconst.jpg) or this (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Brave_mel.jpg). Also, not this (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Predator_%281987%29_-_The_Predator.jpg).
heck, any white guy with dark hair would have done :clown:
Can I vote for "A funny thing happened on the way to the forum" ?
Okay, so this film does not even try to be accurate. The costumes are weird, the soldiers have the wrong equipment, it's immensely silly and it's a broadway musical.
But I think it is true in spirit to ancient comedy in general and Plautus in particular. Sure, it sticks a half-dozen plays together in a weird medley. Sure, the interpretation is obviously geared towards a modern audience. But Plautus often did much the same, and he probably depicted Greece in his plays in much the same inaccurate way Rome is depicted here for modern audiences.
Interestingly enough Rome in this film looks a lot like Rome does in the HBO series and a lot unlike the imposing white marble then in vogue. It looks like a living city, chaotic and colourful. It depicts slaves and crooks and procurers rather than armies and heroes and noblewomen. It neither glorifies nor vilifies the ancient world.
In the end, I have a feeling the ancient Romans would have appreciated the silly slapstick in this film. Something for everyone. ;-)
I totally agree - accurate in spirit. Maybe not accurate to some of the little details, but frankly, it'd lose a lot of it's comedic appeal if it was "perfect." It's just supposed to be a silly slapstick comedy. And it does a great job. -M
Power2the1
14/06/10, 13:55
Bah, I just saw the Celt, and he looks awful. I think I am going to write in on this one and voice my displeasure. They should pit elite vs. elite. Immortal vs. Gallic noble!!!!!!!
TancredTheNorman
15/06/10, 04:20
I'm glad you two agree with me (Mulceber+Randal). Being accurate to Roman comedy is surprisingly easy, the problem comes when trying to be sure that you are accurate to Rome. Roman Comedy, Law, various writings with various agendas and bias, and random accidently preserved remains (like inscriptions and accidently preserved reciepts) aren't easy sources to use.
Only the really exceptionally bad depictions of Rome or any ancient society deserve to be here and I must say this threat has done a good job of exposing the idiots, although perhaps we could use another thread to praise the brilliant (i.e. Funny Thing happened on the way to the forum, Cadfael).
Uhm. Actually, this thread was meant to be that place to discuss the good ones. I quote the original post:
Since all the old X is historically inaccurate topics where X is some movie/tv series are popping up again. Why not have a list of alternatives?
Of course, the discussion's gotten a bit side-tracked in the next 10 pages, but the original purpose remains.
So. Cadfael is good? It only rings a vague bell to me. Is it some TV show about a medieval monk? I'd like to hear some more about it.
Just saw the Inmortal vs celt ep.
LOL!! they didnt even give the celt a shield, a shield for gods sake! and seriously the club was craaaazyyyy craaaapppp, period.
Ps: ohhh well at least the inmortal was not a ninja/samurai.
Bah, I just saw the Celt, and he looks awful. I think I am going to write in on this one and voice my displeasure. They should pit elite vs. elite. Immortal vs. Gallic noble!!!!!!!
Completely agreed.
antisocialmunky
18/06/10, 04:10
Just pretend its a Celtic Sweboz Mercenary.
Hannibal Khan the Great
18/06/10, 05:54
Just pretend its a Celtic Sweboz Mercenary.
That is an insult to Sweboz.....
Intranetusa
22/06/10, 05:54
Just saw the Inmortal vs celt ep.
LOL!! they didnt even give the celt a shield, a shield for gods sake! and seriously the club was craaaazyyyy craaaapppp, period.
Ps: ohhh well at least the inmortal was not a ninja/samurai.
Completely agreed.
They did give the Celt a shield I believe. Otherwise the Persian immortal would've had 1000 kills with his bow.
Intranetusa
22/06/10, 05:55
I quit deadliest warrior after the centurion versus rajput. Im taking nothing away from the rajput but a pick axe instead of his shield as a weapon? (see Spartan),. I couldnt take anymore absurdity. Just my opinion. Worth less than two cents.
They screwed over the Rajput as much as they did the Roman. Rajputs never used that useless whip thing in battle (women carried them as concealed weapons). Rajputs also never carried those death frisbees on the battlefield either because it was useless against armor or shields. Rajputs normally would have had a spear and a bow along with his sword.
I don't know, those Gaesatae were pretty tough! But the biggest piece of blasphemy came when they did that Viking vs. Samurai episode...
The episode was alright. With the exception of that ridiculous samurai club. Despite the samurai victory, the end result was basically a tie due to the close margin of error.
On Deadliest Warrior wikia pictures of both have been posted.
Good thing:
-B.C. period Celt.
Bad Things:
-Completely naked with only an scarf before private parts
-Uses wooden club and most likely an axe as well
-Lack of any armour, should have went with top of Celtic warrior society
Accuracy is totally gone and nowhere to be seen.
The actual episode turned out to be decent. Yes, the Celt wasn't wearing armor, but they weren't portrayed as screaming savages either. And most of the Adeui and Avernai Celtic EB units don't have armor either.
Antonivs Silvicola
22/06/10, 20:03
They screwed over the Rajput as much as they did the Roman. Rajputs never used that useless whip thing in battle (women carried them as concealed weapons). Rajputs also never carried those death frisbees on the battlefield either because it was useless against armor or shields. Rajputs normally would have had a spear and a bow along with his sword.
I agree there as well. I know the show is just for entertainment and isn't supposed to be a "documentary" but it just feels like they're playing rock, paper, scissors. Meh. Whatever. The weapons demonstrations are still the best part of the show to me.
Intranetusa
23/06/10, 00:05
I agree there as well. I know the show just for entertainment and isn't supposed to be a "documentary" but it just feels like they're playing rock, paper, scissors. Meh. Whatever. The weapons demonstrations are still the best part of the show to me.
True. I like when the experts take jabs at each other too... ;)
I agree there as well. I know the show just for entertainment and isn't supposed to be a "documentary" but it just feels like they're playing rock, paper, scissors. Meh. Whatever. The weapons demonstrations are still the best part of the show to me.
IMHO its the worst part; I mean seriously, those tests are either unnecessary, or poorly done (to the point that a stinger was ruled ineffective in comparison to that immobile taser thingy).
I mean, srsly, ineffective? its a nonlethal weapon, which did no damage to the ballistic gel/model, and they call the stinger ineffective?
you know what? if they really wanted to test this weapon properly, they should have bought a stinger, and do what spoony proposed: give a stinger to the man who declared it ineffective, pull the pin, leave the room, then come back, handcuff the man, and then stomp on the ********' crown-jewels, and challenge him to fight back.
and you know what? he won't be able to-because the stinger has incapacitated them, without killing him..you know, like its supposed to?!
srsly, I'm never gonna let that go-I mean, there's entertainment, then there is extreme stupidity. this show is an example of the latter.
but that's just my opinion :clown:
and that was not what put me off to be frank: it was the spartan v. Ninja that did. that, and that 300-esque narrator.
http://deadliestwarrior.wikia.com/wiki/Celt
Okay, I think I made it much more acceptable. I don't know why there's weird indents though...
Antonivs Silvicola
23/06/10, 14:35
IMHO its the worst part; I mean seriously, those tests are either unnecessary, or poorly done (to the point that a stinger was ruled ineffective in comparison to that immobile taser thingy).
I mean, srsly, ineffective? its a nonlethal weapon, which did no damage to the ballistic gel/model, and they call the stinger ineffective?
you know what? if they really wanted to test this weapon properly, they should have bought a stinger, and do what spoony proposed: give a stinger to the man who declared it ineffective, pull the pin, leave the room, then come back, handcuff the man, and then stomp on the ********' crown-jewels, and challenge him to fight back.
and you know what? he won't be able to-because the stinger has incapacitated them, without killing him..you know, like its supposed to?!
srsly, I'm never gonna let that go-I mean, there's entertainment, then there is extreme stupidity. this show is an example of the latter.
but that's just my opinion :clown:
and that was not what put me off to be frank: it was the spartan v. Ninja that did. that, and that 300-esque narrator.
I was more speaking of the tests themselves (cutting pigs in half and what have you). I never really listen to much of what the "experts" have to say anyway.
Phalanx300
23/06/10, 14:44
http://deadliestwarrior.wikia.com/wiki/Celt
Okay, I think I made it much more acceptable. I don't know why there's weird indents though...
Don't like you took away Johny Shumates picture I posted up there lol. I think using EB to show the warriors isn't the best thing to do, better look for artwork of some kind then game models.
For the rest it looks quite nice.
Apázlinemjó
23/06/10, 14:53
Am I the only one who finds this series very boring?
Phalanx300
23/06/10, 15:49
I gues so. Lately in season two I kind of hooked off, the complete inaccuracies are even worse then before and they aren't even reacting to people asking them about it in the Aftermath. While the comments are always littered with accuracy questions. Also of their tests...
Intranetusa
23/06/10, 18:47
http://deadliestwarrior.wikia.com/wiki/Celt
Okay, I think I made it much more acceptable. I don't know why there's weird indents though...
Someone plagiarized EB's picture of the Gallic Heavy Swordsmen... O_o
And they also plagiarized several more pictures...
No, he put them in himself.
whoops, yeah it was late and I didn't think of that... Should I take them down if they haven't been? Also I didn't see the Johnny Shumate pic that Phalanx put up, but with talk of plagiarism...
Saw the episode. A shame about there being bagpipe music and the "Celt" wearing a kilt. Riiiiight.
I was more speaking of the tests themselves (cutting pigs in half and what have you). I never really listen to much of what the "experts" have to say anyway.
those on their own are indeed decent, but I tend to look at the experiments as a whole, not just the carving up. afterall, they do claim in their advertisements and such, that they are scientifically testing the issue, and have in fact brought in specialists for the purpose (a doctor, weapons expert, bunch of guinea pigs, etc). If they are going to do that, the I darn well expect them to conduct at least a decent, basic level test of the issue, in the scientific method.
as an example:
if I were to test the stinger and mass taser thingy, here's the background (technically, an observation):
1-the weapons are used by two different paramilitary agencies.
2-both are meant as non-lethal weapons.
using the above, I can form a hypothesis: "one of the weapons may or may not be better than the other in the hands of paramilitary forces"
now to test the two to see who is best, we have to look at the following:
1-how can the weapons be deployed?
2-are they flexible in their deployment? (portability, tactical uses, ease of use)
3-what is the range (both throwing/shooting, and "blast radius")
4-are they reliable?
5-what is the likelyhood of collatoral damage? (bear in mind, this is a paramilitary deal; they want to get as many people out alive as humanly possible)
6-most important of all: as the weapons are supposed to be non-lethal, which weapon can incapaciate better, while causing the least likelyhood of permanent injury, or God forbid, death?
now that we have criteria, we make a prediction, based on the hypothesis. in this case, I'll predict that the superior weapon will excel at more of these tests than the other weapon.
we then test these variables in a series of controlled experiments, and compare the results with one another (we can even run the tests for multiple factors at once), and with a third "control", and come to a conclusion. the conclusion must logially follow the hypothesis. an example of a good one would be my conclusions about the origins of the moon, based on the lunar rocks I got to examine (yes, I did write a paper about it, and yes, I really did get to look at lunar rock; my assessment is actually the teach's; she loved the paper). an example of an irrational conclusion (summed up version): "since dinosaurs have no respiratory turbinals, but birds do, it logically follows that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs". this ridiculous statement is from Rubin et al, 1997. and the results and conclusions are both wrong.
anyways, on topic: if the conclusion fits the hypothesis nicely (i.e one is superior to the other by a wide margin), we go with that, and "publish" our findings (or, since we are doing this on national TV, broadcast it), and maybe modify it slightly to fit the data. if the tests invalidate a hypothesis, the conclusion becomes the new hypothesis, or, now that it has been demonstrated, a theory.
let's compare that to Deadliest warrior, shall we?
hypothesis: whichever does the most damage is the most rad maaan!!
test: let's deploy the teser thingy on one target (a person), and the stinger on another (a dummy), and see which keels over or is damaged first.
result: taser knocked stuff down, but stinger left everything intact, without a trace of damage.
conclusion: taser is awesomz! stinger is *****! yay!!
compare the two, and tell me which one makes some level of sense. I srsly doubt its the latter approach.
mind you, this is what an undergrad came up with in 10 minutes of typing, without actually putting any thought to the matter-just pure instinct-so naturally whatever I propose may be far from perfect.
but if some random internet ******* came up with this, then imagine what they can do, if they put 2 or 3 hrs into it, and spent the rest of the time collecting data and filming it.
and you know what the sad part is? my mom and brothers think its scientific as a show is. my dad is neutral, since he never saw it, or heard about it.
EDIT: now, what about the claim that its "just entertainment"? well, I agree; it is, and I wouldn't take issue if they billed it as such, with a "lab twist". but they billed this as a state of the art lab in the city of crack, and they are supposedly doing scientific tests. I'm thus more ****** off for the principle of the matter, more than just what they did/do.
antisocialmunky
24/06/10, 05:10
:-\
You know, I've always wanted to see a show where they just brought different groups of reenactors together and had them beat on each other to do various tasks to show who was better..
Intranetusa
24/06/10, 05:42
The funny thing is, despite Deadliest-Warrior being a show on Spike TV, it's STILL more historically accurate than the majority of the shows on the History Channel.
Hannibal Khan the Great
24/06/10, 06:51
The funny thing is, despite Deadliest-Warrior being a show on Spike TV, it's STILL more historically accurate than the majority of the shows on the History Channel.
Yeah, but that's not saying much.... when I watch a history channel show on the 410 A.D. sack of Rome, first thing I see: LS, rectangular shields, and coolus type helmets. Need I say more?
Deadliest Warrior is a show that I hate, but watch all the time. I started hating it when the Viking lost to the Samurai, and I realized it was full of balls when it told everyone that a 18th century pirate would beat Medieval knight in a duel. I screamed like a lunatic when I had to watch the Alexander vs. Attila and Centurion vs. Rajput episodes too. But, the show did give me the odd pleasure of actually being able to desperately wish for the Nazis to win, and I get to watch it with my sister, and we like to act out the voice of Gelly the Gel Torso as he gets assassinated five times an episode. Really, it's just a show about being a retarded as possible, but with weapons and a guy named Dr. John Dorian, who stole his name from Scrubs.
Never saw the Celt vs. Immortal episode, and I suppose that's for the best. Do the Immortals look like they did in 300? I mean, the Spartans from 300 were in the show twice.
Well, to be more on topic, I'm not very good with finding historical inaccuracies in movies. I guess I'm just not very observant. I read through this whole thread and have seen lists of historical inaccuracies in movies that I've seen, and I apparently missed all of them. So, I guess I would not be the best person to say which movies are the most historically accurate, but I suppose Alexander is the best one I have seen, in that regard.
Actually, I have kind of a funny and sad story about the historical accuracy of The Patriot. I had to do a report on the Battle of Cowpens in 7th grade, which is the final battle at the end of the movie. The battle in the movie was only vaguely like the real battle, with the only significant similarity being that the militia at the front fired two volleys and then fell back, and then the over-confident British unexpectedly ran into the Continentals and Virginia riflemen, etc. After that, the real battle culminated in a Cannae-style pincer envelopment by the Continentals.
Now, the funny and sad part of this story is that before I presented my paper to the class, my teacher (who I don't think was actually qualified to teach a history class) gave a brief description of the battle to the class, and it was basically an exact description of the battle in the movie. For instance, he said that Gen. Cornwallis was leading the British army, which he wasn't, he referred to Col. Tarleton as "Tavington," who was obviously supposed to be Tarleton but for some reason had his name changed for the movie, and he said that when the militia feigned retreat, they went down a hill to where the continental army was hiding, because the British couldn't see them there until the last second, and then there was a fun bayonet charge and the 'Murkans won. The only thing that was missing from that was him saying that Mel Gibson stabbed the mean British guy in the neck at the end. The worst part of it for me was having to present my report after that, and tell everyone that my teacher was wrong.
Story over.
Yeah, but that's not saying much.... when I watch a history channel show on the 410 A.D. sack of Rome, first thing I see: LS, rectangular shields, and coolus type helmets. Need I say more?
don't forget that retarded 300-esque style show called "battles BC"...
Intranetusa
24/06/10, 22:19
Deadliest Warrior is a show that I hate, but watch all the time. I started hating it when the Viking lost to the Samurai, and I realized it was full of balls when it told everyone that a 18th century pirate would beat Medieval knight in a duel. I screamed like a lunatic when I had to watch the Alexander vs. Attila and Centurion vs. Rajput episodes too.
What was wrong with Viking v Samurai? Both were great warriors and the results at the end were fairly close. The Samurai had better armor (18th cent?).
Alexander vs Attila was fine too. 1v1 or squad vs squad, Hunnic cavalry would have shot Alexander's phalangites full of holes. Alexander beat the Scythians in one battle thanks to a crap load of missile weaponry and the Scythians falling into a trap.
As for centurion vs Rajput, I didn't know how they used unhistorical weapons for both sides, and the testing was crap, but the result at the end was expected. Fully armored Rajput warrior who trained mostly for one on one combat beats a centurion who mostly drilled for formation combat.
Do the Immortals look like they did in 300? I mean, the Spartans from 300 were in the show twice.
Is that a serious question? O_o
The movie 300 is to the history of Thermopylae as the Lord of the Rings is to the history of the European Middle Ages...
Intranetusa
24/06/10, 22:31
Do the Immortals look like they did in 300? I mean, the Spartans from 300 were in the show twice.
:inquisitive:
:furious3:
Saying 300 is historically INACCURATE is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Roughly 90-95% of the movie is total fantasy.
-There were 300 Spartans + at LEAST 7000-8000 other Greek soldiers at Thermopylae for the first two days.
-There were 300 Spartans + at LEAST 700 Thespians and most likely 300 Thebans on the last day (probably also Spartan slaves/helots)
-Persians did not have a million soldiers. They had 70,000-300,000 max by modern estimates, and only a fraction of that fought at Thermopylae. (logistically speaking, a million man army marching from Iran to Greece wasn't feasible)
-There was a huge Athenian navy preventing the Persians from flanking the soldiers at Thermopylae. Thermopylae was a tactical and strategic failure since the Greeks had to abandon almost half of Greece.
-Spartans wore heavy bronze muscle curiass armor, not speedos.
-At Thermopylae , the Persians did not have giant LoTR oliphaunt like-war elephants nor giant armored rhinos.
_Persians had already abolished slavery
-The Spartans were the biggest dictators of ancient Greece, and were not fighting for democracy. (2/3 of the Spartan populace were enslaved neighbors - Helots)
-It was part of Spartan training to go out into the countryside and murder a Helot
-The Persian 10,000 immortals aren't mutant-lizard ninjas with East Asian masks.
-Persians didn't have giant Doom-esque bald fat guys with saw blades attached to their arms
-Persians had many Greek city states and Greek mercenaries fighting on their side
-Xerxes is not a 10 foot tall, dark skinned metro sexual she-male with thousands of gold body piercings on his body.
-Persians were not suicidal as portrayed in the movie.
-Xerxes wasn't personally present at Thermopylae iirc (?)
-The Persians did not have grenades (Song gunpowder weaponry) in the 5th century BCE.
-The hoplites did NOT break the phalanx formation to fight in one-on-one barbarian brawls
-Persians are not dark skinned Arabian looking people or black sub-Saharan Africans. Their skin color was equivalent to the tanned Mediterranean Greeks due to their Aryan background. Persians are Indo-Iranian-Europeans
-Spartans had 2 kings ruling simultaneously.
-Spartan males (even high ranking officals) lived in barracks, not the luxurious palaces you see in the movie.
-Oracle of Delphi did not say Sparta will burn to the ground.
-Spartans did not speak with Irish accents, and not all Spartans had 6 packs.
-Persia did not just randomly decide to invade Greece - they the Greeks had supported various Greco-Persian colonies in Turkey in a rebellion against Persia.
Regarding the Helots, they were worse off than the other slaves in Greece.
As the Spartans became a military state solely in order to control the Helot population, and each year they would terrorize (and murder) the Helot population in order to instill fear and prevent rebellion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to Spartans vs Immortals:
The battle of Thermopylae involved 300 Spartans AND over 8000 Greek hoplites defending the narrow pass. They defended against the Persian for 2 days. On the 3rd day the 300 Spartans, several hundred Spartan slaves, 300 Thespians, 700 Thebans stayed behind as the rear guard.
Herodotus, who we get the story from, never said the Spartan/Thespian/Theban beat the Immortals in any meaningful manner. We only know that the Persians were unable to break through the Greek line - and before long, the Persian king sounded a withdrawal because he had found a way around the mountains.
:furious3:
....
whew, that felt better... :sweatdrop:
I love you, Intranet. <3
Thanks.
-Persia did not just randomly decide to invade Greece - they the Greeks had supported various Greco-Persian colonies in Turkey in a rebellion against Persia.
Of course, it wasn't called Turkey back then. It was called Mikras Asia in Greek or Yauna in Persian, after "Ionia".
Apázlinemjó
25/06/10, 10:48
I agree, though I wouldn't call the battle of Thermopylae a strategic failure as it did give enough time to the Greeks to counter the invasion.
Phalanx300
25/06/10, 11:29
The writer himself said that he showed 300 as an story told by an Spartan to his fellow Spartans. Explaining the monter like Persians etc. That said 300 never tried to portray things Historically anyways. DW does try that and fails. Also in the Nazi episode, they never played WW2 games or something? Sucky weapon selection... I mean the Nazi's invented worlds first assault rifle and they don't use it... They should let an Call of Duty team get over or something... >.<..
Best move for an sequal for 300 would be to turn thing around, to show the Persians as the victims and the Greeks as the monsters. Too bad thats probably not going to happen.
The writer himself said that he showed 300 as an story told by an Spartan to his fellow Spartans.
Yes, you can pretty much defend anything this way.
antisocialmunky
25/06/10, 13:12
It doesn't change the fact that they all still were wearing speedos in the end.
It would have been pretty funny if it flashed to a realistic depiction at the end like the whole story was the product of 5000 Spartans with overactive imaginations.
Intranetusa
25/06/10, 18:15
I love you, Intranet. <3
:beam:
I agree, though I wouldn't call the battle of Thermopylae a strategic failure as it did give enough time to the Greeks to counter the invasion.
Well, I would still consider it a strategic failure because it ruined their war plans.
The battle only gave them 2-3 extra days - and the result was they lost half of Greece and had important cities like Athens being captured...
iirc, I read somewhere that the entire initial Greek strategy was stopping them up north near Thermopylae. After Thermopylae fell, the Greeks had to change their entire war plan. So it was good in the sense that the defeat forced them to adopt a better strategy that allowed them to win in the end.
I mean the Nazi's invented worlds first assault rifle and they don't use it... They should let an Call of Duty team get over or something... >.<..
They didn't show the VC's AK-47 either. And the ak-47 would have been better than anything the Nazis had...way better than the stg-44 whachamacallit...
TancredTheNorman
25/06/10, 21:22
Saying 300 is historically INACCURATE is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Roughly 90-95% of the movie is total fantasy.
Agreed
-There were 300 Spartans + at LEAST 7000-8000 other Greek soldiers at Thermopylae for the first two days.
Yes but the third day is what so stunned the Greeks and the world, you do realize that it impressed Xerxes and he ordered all of the Spartans including Leonidas to be given graves exactly where they fell? That was an unusual honor Greek and in Persian culture alike.
-There were 300 Spartans + at LEAST 700 Thespians and most likely 300 Thebans on the last day (probably also Spartan slaves/helots)
Think about the force they were fighting against, and it would seem from the way the Spartans got the royal treatment after the battle that their fighting is what impressed the enemy. Actions sometimes speak louder than words.
-Persians did not have a million soldiers. They had 70,000-300,000 max by modern estimates, and only a fraction of that fought at Thermopylae. (logistically speaking, a million man army marching from Iran to Greece wasn't feasible)
That is still a massively one sided number, even if you accept the lowest possible one.
-There was a huge Athenian navy preventing the Persians from flanking the soldiers at Thermopylae. Thermopylae was a tactical and strategic failure since the Greeks had to abandon almost half of Greece.
The Athenian Navy was itself outnumbered and saved by a storm and by bluff, had the weather been nicer the Persians would have easily encircled it, the Persian Admiral actually knew to encircle and destroy the Athenian Fleet and tried to do it, but stormy seas prevented it.
-Spartans wore heavy bronze muscle curiass armor, not speedos.
Yes, although I personally think thanks to their shields Athenian Linothorax (sp) was better armor, but that is off topic.
-At Thermopylae , the Persians did not have giant LoTR oliphaunt like-war elephants nor giant armored rhinos.
True, but those scenes are a revelation of exactly how seriously you should take the great nightmare known as 300.
_Persians had already abolished slavery
That simply isn't true, and the treatment of serfs in law and practice was not exactly good. There is a reason why the Persians relied on their cavalry, and a reason why the Parthians and Sassanians did to.
-The Spartans were the biggest dictators of ancient Greece, and were not fighting for democracy. (2/3 of the Spartan populace were enslaved neighbors - Helots)
Who are you comparing them to? If they are being compared to Persians it would be a very interesting comparison of Spartan Warrior Citizen vs Persian Cavalryman, or Helot vs Serf/Slaves, but overall if your comparing them to Athens or Thebes I definitely agree. Even then however half the Spartan Population was a lot freer then half the Athenian Population.
-It was part of Spartan training to go out into the countryside and murder a Helot
That is true, Sparta ruled the Helots by intimidation and threat of murder.
-The Persian 10,000 immortals aren't mutant-lizard ninjas with East Asian masks.
Yes, although I never saw any of those ahistorical ninja without a mask on, it could be thanks to the recoil and disgust I had at seeing them at all, and how badly they were done. Immortals were amongst the best body guards of the ancient world.
-Persians didn't have giant Doom-esque bald fat guys with saw blades attached to their arms
I was actually amused by that nonesense.
-Persians had many Greek city states and Greek mercenaries fighting on their side
Not nearly as many as later on in history, this was Xerxes not Darius, the infantry combat didn't look like a war between two Greek City States, although yes he did have some Greeks I would be careful of confusing him for later Persian Emperors.
.
-Xerxes is not a 10 foot tall, dark skinned metro sexual she-male with thousands of gold body piercings on his body.
Yes but he wasn't Dark Skinned in the movie either as far as I could tell, I might just have bad eye sight (thank you video games).
-Persians were not suicidal as portrayed in the movie.
Yes, but when forced to rely on infantry without cavalry Persian Armies did not do very well, not just at Thermopylae, the Athenians crushed a much larger Persian Army by figuring out where fighting could prevent the use of cavalry. The Persian favorite weapon couldn't be used everywere.
-Xerxes wasn't personally present at Thermopylae iirc (?)
He was close behind and he did allow Mardonius everything he asked for, although had he been present I don't know what he would have done differently, Mardonius appears to be the villain of Herodotus who wanted an invasion and wanted to conquer the Greeks.
-The Persians did not have grenades (Song gunpowder weaponry) in the 5th century BCE.
The nonesense like grenades was better then the movie, I would rather see Persians hurling grenades at iron age warriors then the horrible acting and horrible script of 300, although both are bad.
-The hoplites did NOT break the phalanx formation to fight in one-on-one barbarian brawls
Definitely, but good enemy commanders would try and force them to break the formation/
-Persians are not dark skinned Arabian looking people or black sub-Saharan Africans. Their skin color was equivalent to the tanned Mediterranean Greeks due to their Aryan background. Persians are Indo-Iranian-Europeans
Yes, but to depict that would outrage the union of morons who think everyone outside of Europe are black and they need to come up with new terms for people who are non European but clearly white,[turns on sarcasm] and surely we can't outrage those people.
-Spartans had 2 kings ruling simultaneously.
Yes
-Spartan males (even high ranking officals) lived in barracks, not the luxurious palaces you see in the movie.
Yes, but the Kings probably didn't live in the same conditions as a 18 year old who didn't yet see combat.
-Oracle of Delphi did not say Sparta will burn to the ground.
Agreed, and I would add the Spartans were the most superstitious of the Greeks so that would have prevented everything.
-Spartans did not speak with Irish accents, and not all Spartans had 6 packs.
Yes
-Persia did not just randomly decide to invade Greece - they the Greeks had supported various Greco-Persian colonies in Turkey in a rebellion against Persia.
But they lost at Marathon
Regarding the Helots, they were worse off than the other slaves in Greece.
Yes but Helots were not the only type of servant, and not all Helots were in the same position.
As the Spartans became a military state solely in order to control the Helot population, and each year they would terrorize (and murder) the Helot population in order to instill fear and prevent rebellion.
Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to Spartans vs Immortals:
The battle of Thermopylae involved 300 Spartans AND over 8000 Greek hoplites defending the narrow pass. They defended against the Persian for 2 days. On the 3rd day the 300 Spartans, several hundred Spartan slaves, 300 Thespians, 700 Thebans stayed behind as the rear guard.
Herodotus, who we get the story from, never said the Spartan/Thespian/Theban beat the Immortals in any meaningful manner. We only know that the Persians were unable to break through the Greek line - and before long, the Persian king sounded a withdrawal because he had found a way around the mountains.
:furious3:
Several Thousand Slaves is unlikely, and the Narrow Pass would have evened things out, it was probably only 300 Spartans defending against different groups of 300 non Spartans much of the time, with similar actions involving other Greeks at different parts of the pass.
Intranetusa
25/06/10, 23:39
Agreed....
.
Indeed.
Btw, Deadliest Warrior's Sun Tzu vs Vlad weaponry are up.
Vlad gets a gunpowder hand cannon and a giant iron halberd.
Sun Tzu gets a back scratcher. O_o
I really like to know how they came up with this one...
And I think almost every single one of Sun Tzu's weapons is either fictional, or anachronistic and didn't exist during his time...
I had high hopes since last week's Persian vs Celt was decent. I think Deadliest Warrior might be going downhill a la history channel...
Here's a quote from one of the posters regarding Sun Tzu's weapons:
"Claw- Never have I read about this weapon used in actual battle formations, the only place where i've seen this back scratcher is in kungfu movies. So instead of using the dagger axe, which was a STANDARD weapon for any army at the time you have an obscure back scratcher for a weapon instead. That's like giving a legionnaire a whip instead of a pilum.
Jian-That's a steel sword, Sun Tzu lived in the bronze age, bronze swords cannot be casted that long and thin unless you actually want it to break as one of the special features. Bronze swords during the spring and autumn period looked very much like gladius, actually google sword of goujian and compare them.
Repeating Crossbow-Whether this weapon existing during the same time frame as Sun Tsu Was supposed of existed is a question. The primary role of this weapon was defensive, i.e raining bolts from walls on top of sieging enemies, doe's Sun Tsu get a wall as a special weapon? The bolts were also tipped with poison because it lack punching power. The regular crossbow was much more common at the time and we know for a fact that entire formations were made up of crossbowmen.
Fire Arrow-Okay flaming arrows were used during the time for sieging, But it's redundant if you had the crossbow to begin with, you could easily light the bolts on fire and have the same thing, against infantry the fire makes little difference as the bolts/arrows were tipped with poison already. A shield would of made much more sense, as it was also standard equipment for infantry of the time."
Indeed.
Btw, Deadliest Warrior's Sun Tzu vs Vlad weaponry are up.
Vlad gets a gunpowder hand cannon and a giant iron halberd.
Sun Tzu gets a back scratcher. O_o
I really like to know how they came up with this one...
And I think almost every single one of Sun Tzu's weapons is either fictional, or anachronistic and didn't exist during his time...
I had high hopes since last week's Persian vs Celt was decent. I think Deadliest Warrior might be going downhill a la history channel...
Here's a quote from one of the posters regarding Sun Tzu's weapons:
"Claw- Never have I read about this weapon used in actual battle formations, the only place where i've seen this back scratcher is in kungfu movies. So instead of using the dagger axe, which was a STANDARD weapon for any army at the time you have an obscure back scratcher for a weapon instead. That's like giving a legionnaire a whip instead of a pilum.
Jian-That's a steel sword, Sun Tzu lived in the bronze age, bronze swords cannot be casted that long and thin unless you actually want it to break as one of the special features. Bronze swords during the spring and autumn period looked very much like gladius, actually google sword of goujian and compare them.
Repeating Crossbow-Whether this weapon existing during the same time frame as Sun Tsu Was supposed of existed is a question. The primary role of this weapon was defensive, i.e raining bolts from walls on top of sieging enemies, doe's Sun Tsu get a wall as a special weapon? The bolts were also tipped with poison because it lack punching power. The regular crossbow was much more common at the time and we know for a fact that entire formations were made up of crossbowmen.
Fire Arrow-Okay flaming arrows were used during the time for sieging, But it's redundant if you had the crossbow to begin with, you could easily light the bolts on fire and have the same thing, against infantry the fire makes little difference as the bolts/arrows were tipped with poison already. A shield would of made much more sense, as it was also standard equipment for infantry of the time."
well, if they had any scruples, the DW people would give Sun Tzu a 2 ft sword, superficially similar to the gladius, lovely scale armor (a la terracotta army, but perhaps cruder*; bear in mind a 1-200 year diff), and perhaps a chariot and pike/halberd.. now if he were infantry, pikes, halberds, swords, and of course, crossbows/bows would be the norm.
that's assuming he's a private-I have absolutely no clue what he had as a general :clown:
*hey, they want bad ******, don't they?
What was wrong with Viking v Samurai? Both were great warriors and the results at the end were fairly close. The Samurai had better armor (18th cent?).
Alexander vs Attila was fine too. 1v1 or squad vs squad, Hunnic cavalry would have shot Alexander's phalangites full of holes. Alexander beat the Scythians in one battle thanks to a crap load of missile weaponry and the Scythians falling into a trap.
As for centurion vs Rajput, I didn't know how they used unhistorical weapons for both sides, and the testing was crap, but the result at the end was expected. Fully armored Rajput warrior who trained mostly for one on one combat beats a centurion who mostly drilled for formation combat.
Is that a serious question? O_o
The movie 300 is to the history of Thermopylae as the Lord of the Rings is to the history of the European Middle Ages...
I wasn't mad at those episodes because they were inaccurate, I was mad because the sides that I wanted to win lost. Pretty much every side I want to win loses.
And no, that's wasn't a serious question, although I wouldn't put it past Deadliest Warrior to use the 300 Immortals as if they really looked like that. I figured that since they did the same thing with the Spartans that they could do it with the Immortals too. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could see 300 as historically accurate. Even people I've talked to who have seen it and don't know crap about Spartans apart from that movie don't think it's historically accurate.
Badass Buddha
01/07/10, 08:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcFOSfaCNec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_Rising_(movie)
Do I even have to say anything?
Do I even have to say anything?
Yes: why the hell couldn't they just make a straight Viking movie?
Actually that film is pretty good, the trailer is very misleading and the film is nothing like it.
And to be honest the portrayal of the vikings in it is far better than in most films you'll see, ie grubby and dirt poor as opposed to being decked out in horned helmets and armour.
Apázlinemjó
01/07/10, 12:37
Yes: why the hell couldn't they just make a straight Viking movie?
I find even the trailer good too compared to other "historical wannabe" movies' trailers.
ah man, i love the 300 hate.
it's like.. MAN ANYBODY SEEN THAT MOVIE WILD WILD WEST... WTF?? BLACK COWBOYS?? MECHA SPIDER MACHINES?!?!? WTF COME ON GUYSSSS THAT'S TOTALLY NOT RITE
ah man, i love the 300 hate.
it's like.. MAN ANYBODY SEEN THAT MOVIE WILD WILD WEST... WTF?? BLACK COWBOYS?? MECHA SPIDER MACHINES?!?!? WTF COME ON GUYSSSS THAT'S TOTALLY NOT RITE
ok....
well, black cowboys were real :clown: (no, srsly, some did exist). and this movie, unlike 300, makes no real attempt at even rewriting history from the "perspective of one side". its just a western action sci fi thingy in the format of Jonah Hex...only IMO, WWW sucked, and Jonah Hex didn't (I refer to the comic, not the movie, which I have yet to see).
let's face it, comedy doesn't work with everything.
And honestly, 300 might have been awful (no denying that), but at least its not cinematic horror show known as "the spirit" :sick:
this one is based on a will Eisner comic, of the same name, only its been ****** on by Frank Miller (who not only wrote 300, but also directed this abomination). I heard Miller and the late Eisner were supposedly friends, but as Linkara and Filmbrain put it, after seeing this movie, I wonder if he actually hated Eisner.
I think this incident, along with others*, may be the ulterior motive behind the Miller-bashing; Miller, let's face it, is what in Arabic is known as a hamajiyy (barbarian or savage are rough translations); proud, deluded, and with certain...lady issues. the last one is particularly apparent in "the spirit" :sick:
*like: all star batman and robin, Dark Knight (the comic), Sin City, 300, etc, etc, etc.
300 was great, dunno what you're talking about.
so was apoclypto, which was really just a chase movie, set in a nondescript "prehistoric south american" context. the coming of the spaniards wasn't racist. i thought it was pretty clear the irony of them arriving. it had nothing to do with them coming to "tame and civilize" them. it seemed pretty obvious that it was meant to foreshadow and mirror the brutality seen in the movie.
like.. oh snap you thought that was bad... here comes cortez
not really anything about "making them into proper white people"
...they're gonna behead and murder and pillage this civilization, just as the 'mayans' did to the hero's family.
TancredTheNorman
02/07/10, 02:11
Indeed.
Btw, Deadliest Warrior's Sun Tzu vs Vlad weaponry are up.
Vlad gets a gunpowder hand cannon and a giant iron halberd.
Sun Tzu gets a back scratcher. O_o
I really like to know how they came up with this one...
And I think almost every single one of Sun Tzu's weapons is either fictional, or anachronistic and didn't exist during his time...
I had high hopes since last week's Persian vs Celt was decent. I think Deadliest Warrior might be going downhill a la history channel...
Here's a quote from one of the posters regarding Sun Tzu's weapons:
"Claw- Never have I read about this weapon used in actual battle formations, the only place where i've seen this back scratcher is in kungfu movies. So instead of using the dagger axe, which was a STANDARD weapon for any army at the time you have an obscure back scratcher for a weapon instead. That's like giving a legionnaire a whip instead of a pilum.
Jian-That's a steel sword, Sun Tzu lived in the bronze age, bronze swords cannot be casted that long and thin unless you actually want it to break as one of the special features. Bronze swords during the spring and autumn period looked very much like gladius, actually google sword of goujian and compare them.
Repeating Crossbow-Whether this weapon existing during the same time frame as Sun Tsu Was supposed of existed is a question. The primary role of this weapon was defensive, i.e raining bolts from walls on top of sieging enemies, doe's Sun Tsu get a wall as a special weapon? The bolts were also tipped with poison because it lack punching power. The regular crossbow was much more common at the time and we know for a fact that entire formations were made up of crossbowmen.
Fire Arrow-Okay flaming arrows were used during the time for sieging, But it's redundant if you had the crossbow to begin with, you could easily light the bolts on fire and have the same thing, against infantry the fire makes little difference as the bolts/arrows were tipped with poison already. A shield would of made much more sense, as it was also standard equipment for infantry of the time."
My point was when correcting ahistorical nonesense like 300 your corrections should be completely accurate, and should never have only part of the fact. A few of your corrections were just innacurate, and others seemed to be trying to indicate that the Spartans did not show exceptional and unique courage, which is something the emperor Xerxes himself disagreed with. The moral judgement against Spartan Culture also as I pointed out depends on who the comparison is towards and in what way you are comparing.
antisocialmunky
02/07/10, 03:28
had high hopes since last week's Persian vs Celt was decent. I think Deadliest Warrior might be going downhill a la history channel...
Wow, Deadliest Warrior > History Channel. That made me lol pretty hard right there.
300 was great, dunno what you're talking about.
I respect your opinion, but, well, to me its terrible, whether or not its accurate historically. to me, on its own, it simply has no appeal. I don't think there is anything cool about a fool kicking a man down a well after hollering "this is SPARTA", or over muscled men fighting a la gaesatae. the dialogue is abrasive, and strikes me more as a bunch as gangsters screaming at each other. in fact, you can render the whole movie in underground language, and it would make about as much sense.
the lighting is terrible too; too special-effecty (is that even a word?), and I don't like the sepia toning of the skies and rock, and well...everything. and I don't appreciate the ridiculous, over the top appearance of some: I know this is a fantasy-toned movie, but a few thousand earrings on a person =/= creepy or evil. it just means the person looks like an idiot. the over use of oblique shooting and slow motion also kinda stunts the movie, and makes it look like some sort of violent warrior version of a male model exhibition. I want to see Spartans fighting Persians, not some models showing off their biceps to the camera as they spear some random fella in the stomach. actually, the over showing of muscles kinda reminds me of the ultimate warrior (a wrestler).
then there is the farcical spraying of blood, that makes the movie look like the mass-murdering of a bunch of mortal combat characters; one of the character's death recounts to me a fatality move some characters do; essentially ripping/slashing the arms off before decapitating(its been a while, so I'm not accurate).
overall, the movie shows many of the problems of adapting comics-particularly the dark, Milleresque comics, onto the blue screen. it might look right on a page of a cheap comic, but looks like a cheap video when rendered on the silver-screen.
as to apocalypto? I never saw the movie, and accordingly said little/nothing about it. unless you're referring to some other person's posts-I only focused on deadliest warrior and 300.
Badass Buddha
02/07/10, 05:10
I don't like the sepia toning of the skies and rock, and well...everything.
The filmmakers just misunderstood the meaning of Bronze Age.
ah man, i love the 300 hate.
it's like.. MAN ANYBODY SEEN THAT MOVIE WILD WILD WEST... WTF?? BLACK COWBOYS?? MECHA SPIDER MACHINES?!?!? WTF COME ON GUYSSSS THAT'S TOTALLY NOT RITE
Agreed. That's retard. 300 is an action movie to be taken as seriously as Lord of the Rings or The 13th Warrior. People who try to find a political meaning into everything so they can pretend to be intellectuals just make me laugh.
'Onoes, there's a swatiska in Sin City, Miller must be a nazi'
'Onoes, the Spanish invade South America (like they did for real) at the end of the movie. The film is a colonialist hogwash'.
Please, it reminds me of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fam_gLyCH4). Same attitude.
Lucius Verus
14/07/10, 15:16
I think Troy and Spartacus (2004)
Troy was ludicrous hogwash.
Apázlinemjó
14/07/10, 20:40
Actually that film is pretty good, the trailer is very misleading and the film is nothing like it.
And to be honest the portrayal of the vikings in it is far better than in most films you'll see, ie grubby and dirt poor as opposed to being decked out in horned helmets and armour.
I had seen the movie now, and I totally agree.
Edit: People who hadn't read the full topic: the topic title clearly says that the original poster wanted a list about the historically accurate movies/videos and etc. Someone posted that the 300 is accurate, obviously it isn't, everbody should know that. It's an action movie based on a comic, so let's drop it now, because the bashing derails the topic.
Someone posted that the 300 is accurate, obviously it isn't, everbody should know that. It's an action movie based on a comic, so let's drop it now, because the bashing derails the topic.
But everybody also knows that collective bashing of a bad or outrageous film is the real fun.
antisocialmunky
14/07/10, 23:30
Troy was ludicrous hogwash.
I knew a guy in college who thought Troy was the best thing since sliced goat cheese. He didn't believe me when I told him the movie was crap - that was just the type of person he was. However, he took Classical Mythology and had to read the Illiad. He sang a different tune after that and we watched the movie to heckle it later that week.
@ On Topicness
Yes, please post good stuff, not Deadliest Warrior. I'll check out the viking movie.
Enough about 300... not sure how much was mentioned but to me the only halfway close to accurate historical movies have been movies about naval warfare. Probably because making it historical it is still easy to portray it as interesting.
For laughs... Last Samurai- ignoring Tom Cruise character the rest wasn't half bad though a bit mixed up in time period it was closer than most Hollywood stuff.
More historical- Gettysburg, Lebanon (new movie, filmed from Israeli tank crew PoV, political overtones but from a battlefield perspective pretty accurate).
Some German movie I wish I could remember the name of... about WW1 not sure if it was ever translated. watched it in Germany as exchange student.
Unfortunately never seen a good EB era movie from anywhere. HBO's Rome as good or better than any other but still pretty lacking.
Onoes, the Spanish invade South America (like they did for real) at the end of the movie. The film is a colonialist hogwash.
Wait.. What!!?? South America, Mayans?? Apocalypto is worse than i thought then.....
I respect your opinion, but, well, to me its terrible, whether or not its accurate historically. to me, on its own, it simply has no appeal. I don't think there is anything cool about a fool kicking a man down a well after hollering "this is SPARTA", or over muscled men fighting a la gaesatae. the dialogue is abrasive, and strikes me more as a bunch as gangsters screaming at each other. in fact, you can render the whole movie in underground language, and it would make about as much sense.
the lighting is terrible too; too special-effecty (is that even a word?), and I don't like the sepia toning of the skies and rock, and well...everything. and I don't appreciate the ridiculous, over the top appearance of some: I know this is a fantasy-toned movie, but a few thousand earrings on a person =/= creepy or evil. it just means the person looks like an idiot. the over use of oblique shooting and slow motion also kinda stunts the movie, and makes it look like some sort of violent warrior version of a male model exhibition. I want to see Spartans fighting Persians, not some models showing off their biceps to the camera as they spear some random fella in the stomach. actually, the over showing of muscles kinda reminds me of the ultimate warrior (a wrestler).
then there is the farcical spraying of blood, that makes the movie look like the mass-murdering of a bunch of mortal combat characters; one of the character's death recounts to me a fatality move some characters do; essentially ripping/slashing the arms off before decapitating(its been a while, so I'm not accurate).
overall, the movie shows many of the problems of adapting comics-particularly the dark, Milleresque comics, onto the blue screen. it might look right on a page of a cheap comic, but looks like a cheap video when rendered on the silver-screen.
as to apocalypto? I never saw the movie, and accordingly said little/nothing about it. unless you're referring to some other person's posts-I only focused on deadliest warrior and 300.
https://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7478/300128293240020.jpg
http://dynamicforces.com/images/TN300poster01.jpg
http://www.comicus.it/images/specials/300/300comic_3.jpg
that is all.
Yes, please post good stuff, not Deadliest Warrior. I'll check out the viking movie.
I agree. 300 and Deadliest Warrior have been debated ad nauseum. Let's discuss the good films.
I agree. 300 and Deadliest Warrior have been debated ad nauseum. Let's discuss the good films.
Not to nitpick, but it's ad nauseam. Nausea is female, naturally :grin:
Best move for an sequal for 300 would be to turn thing around, to show the Persians as the victims and the Greeks as the monsters. Too bad thats probably not going to happen.
Looks like you getting lucky:http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/300/news/1920092/weekly_ketchup_zack_snyder_pursues_300_prequel_xerxes/
ZACK SNYDER PUSHING FORWARD ON THE 300 SEQUEL XERXES
Following the box office success of 300, another movie seemed like a sure thing, but one minor detail was that Frank Miller, the creator of the graphic novel source material, hadn't written and drawn one yet. Earlier this year, Dark Horse Comics confirmed plans to publish a prequel written and drawn by Frank Miller called Xerxes, named after the Persian king leading the invading forces in 300. This week, Zack Snyder announced that he and his 300 writing partner Kurt Johnstad started work last week on adapting Xerxes. However, Snyder does not officially have a deal to direct Xerxes... yet. Snyder also provides us with the three part premise of Xerxes, which seems to make it both a prequel and a movie that takes place during the same days as the Battle of Thermopylae. Included in Xerxes will be the Battle of Marathon (the bulk of the prequel part), the back story of Xerxes and the story of Athenian politican/general Themistocles and the Battle of Artemsium (the concurrent part). So, while 300 was mostly about the Spartans, Xerxes appears to be more about the Athenians and the Persian invading forces. Xerxes is also certainly good news for Brazilian actor Rodrigo Santoro (presuming he will be returning) who around the release of 300 in 2007 had recently found himself unemployed when his Paulo character was killed off on LOST. In the meantime, Zack Snyder is also continuing work on his next two movies: Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (9/24/10) and Sucker Punch (3/25/11).
antisocialmunky
25/07/10, 21:38
I agree. 300 and Deadliest Warrior have been debated ad nauseum. Let's discuss the good films.
Reminder.
https://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7478/300128293240020.jpg
http://dynamicforces.com/images/TN300poster01.jpg
http://www.comicus.it/images/specials/300/300comic_3.jpg
that is all.
Yepp 300 was VERY faithful/accurate to it's source: the comic.
Mediolanicus
26/07/10, 12:08
I agree. 300 and Deadliest Warrior have been debated ad nause[a]m. Let's discuss the good films.
Reminder.
I agree. This would be a fantastic thread if people would cut the crap about 300.
I agree. This would be a fantastic thread if people would cut the crap about 300.
Or if people posted a thread about movies that have nothing to do with EB in the Tavern
SillySirius
03/08/10, 03:58
Just caught 2 trailers the other day.
One was for a movie called Valhalla Rising and the other was for a movie called Centurion.
Can't really say what Valhalla is supposed to be about except its about Norse dudes and a guy named One-Eye,looks bloody.It's out on cable the same time as theaters so i think i'll rent it.
Centurion looks bad from the trailer,very cliched,but i could be wrong.It even has a fierce warrior chic..It will be refreshing to see a movie set in the past with a strong and independent female character unlike the more recent movies that has every female lead as a wallflower type.
Centurion looks bad from the trailer,very cliched,but i could be wrong.It even has a fierce warrior chic..It will be refreshing to see a movie set in the past with a strong and independent female character unlike the more recent movies that has every female lead as a wallflower type.
-ahem-
Agora?
SillySirius
03/08/10, 15:08
-ahem-
Agora?
No i don't need a sweater its a little warm.
Thanks for offering though.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
03/08/10, 16:09
I think there are two problems with 'historical' films/TV series and even documentaries. The first is the need to 'sex up' the story(300, HBO/BBC's Rome come to mind...), the second is that the makers usually have an agenda, or a 'take' on the sides involved - so that one side must be villainous, the other righteous, leading to (in the docu-drama Rome by the BBC) an almost cackling, seditious Caesar and Mark Antony played off against the civilised, loyal Labienus...
One of the best historical movies I've seen (still) is Tora, Tora, Tora....which, to my mind, is one of the few examples whereby the story is told from a perspective of both sides, neither made out - gratuitously - to be the 'baddy'. The thing is, the 'sexed up' bit really isn't needed, I think; this just underestimates the paying viewer. I know of families that were looking forward to watching Rome (HBO/BBC) as a 'historical' insight, but were put off within the first episode by the stupendously crass rape (filmed with a disturbing humerous irreverence) of the shepherd girl by Mark Antony.... Just unnecessary titilation for its own sake, not to ention the many storylines of Julia (Octavian's mother).
I don't actually know of any good films/TV series of this era....
Centurion looks bad from the trailer,very cliched,but i could be wrong.It even has a fierce warrior chic..Worse, a warrior chick with an axe :rolleyes: Apparently the obvious choice of weapon for a slim woman, according to Hollywood... :wall:
It will be refreshing to see a movie set in the past with a strong and independent female character unlike the more recent movies that has every female lead as a wallflower type.
By wallflower type, you mean disturbed minds with an (auto-)aggression complex and a psychotic drive to kill other people?
SillySirius
04/08/10, 03:26
My tongue was one with the cheek with the wallflower comment.
One movie that i haven't seen mentioned in this thread,and i'm really not even sure if it would fall into the category of historical film,is A quest for fire.
I love that movie.Don't know how accurate it is but its entertaining and it also has Hellboy/Fallout narrator dude in it.What is his name?He was also in an aliens movie and some weird French movie about kidnapped orphans.
Edit:
Heres a link describing the movie and the dude is Ron Perlman..Doh!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_Fire_(film)
I thought I remembered someone mentioning The 13th Warrior way back in this thread somewhere, but it didn't show up in my search, so maybe not. Anyway, I just recently watched it for the first time, about a month ago. My overall opinion of the movie should probably be taken with a heaping lump of salt, as I was in an altered state of mind at the time, but I remember being quite impressed with the historical realism of it. I realize the plot itself is purely fictional, but it seemed to portray the people and culture quite accurately. I have no idea if the Norse-style language spoken was realistic, but it was certainly making an effort. Was anybody else impressed with that aspect of it (if nothing else)?
antisocialmunky
05/08/10, 02:48
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
http://www.cartridgecomics.com/archive_page.php?comicID=97
Actually I never saw any movie set in the antics, which seemed remotly accurate to me and this is beside the overdramatisation, which all Hollywood style movies have, the fact that all characters think and act just to pleasure the demands of the audience, which want to see characters they can relate to.
I really appreciated the movie Alexander for its bold decision to make Alexander an unlikeable bisexual drunkard (Which probably resembles the real alexander at least a little bit), still most other characters were flat and the macedonian seemed way to patriotic for the timeframe.
Anyway, movies, which seem to be at least a little bit accurate you can find in Japan. Also most movie about the sengoku jidai are crap there are some exceptionally historical accurate ones too. Off course making a movie about something happened 300 years ago is easier than one about Alexander and co. butt still. The costumes of many movies are great, some qoutes characters say, where actually spoken and some of them are nearly unwatchable for their characters that dont play with the audience, just sitting there quietly or acting strange and distant. Off course homosexuality is left out of most of them, but still at least the costumes, places and some talk are very accurate.
For starters and not Japanese speakers(Most movies are horribly subtitled or dubbed) I would recommend Shogun, because its an american production, but still very good. They actually did some research and I even had a seminar in univerity about it.^^ Still the american perception of Japan of the 60s,70s plays a really strong part in the movie. esspecially the whole woman stories. Good Japanese movies are off course everything from Kurosawa Akira (Allthough most of his stories are inspired by shakespeare or Japanese writers) they tend to have great costumes (Even with the hideous woman makeup of that time^^) and dialogue and focus on the aspects of Samurai thinking. Also really good one are Sansho the Bailiff and ugetsu (Based on a book from the edo jidai).
Regarding Japanese movies, there are some good ones by Yoji Yamada, set in the nineteenth century I think. Namely "The Twilight Samurai" and two others that are more or less variations on the same theme.
Gaivs Jvlivs Caesar
12/08/10, 13:27
I must agree with most of the users here... - indeed HBO's "Rome" is the most accurate film.Recently historical based movies are chasing massive and epical battle scenes, but not historically accurate play and story.The movie producers relly on epic fight with lots of dead bodies and blood... - massacre... or that's what cathes the eye in first place.I think that we should pay attention to the latest historically roman based film - "Centurion"... - the first 15 - 20 mins are exiting but are they historically accurate!?I mean if really 9-th Legion Hispana was massacered!?:inquisitive: After all I did short research of my own and in most of the sites I could find any info about the fate of the 9-th Legion and I found a historical disagreement betwen the major history specialists.Most of them agree that 9-th Legion was not destroyed, but after being unable to take the iniciative on the Pictish tribes wich rose in rebbelion to the north, the legion was transfered in nova days Antverpen in Holland for winter quarters and replaced by another frontier legion.Officially that's the opinion of most of the specialists after discovernig series of documents that are telling about several of high ranking officers of the legion, being still alive and taking official governing positions in other parts of the empire like Africa, Syria, Judea etc.Or at least the child-tale movie "The last legion" wich was total dissaster is telling the same thing - 9th legion was the last roman legion when Rome fell.I think that some of you would also have something to say so lets hear it :book:
Ha, "the last legion" was recently shown on TV here. what a hillaroisly silly movie, and I thought "king arthur" was far fetched^^
SillySirius
13/08/10, 14:42
I finally got around to watching Valhalla Rising and i still have no clue what the point of the movie was.
They are apparently vikings but speak with Scottish accents,and at one point someone queries the protaginist if he is from one of the clans.Did vikings group in clans?
Did vikings drag their slaves around to pit in fights to the death for money?
Almost everyone had alot of tatoos..how common were they?At first i thought all the tattoing was to mark the slaves but the freemen had them too including one with a tatoo on his forehead.
I didn't think the Scots or the Norse really crusaded but the middle part of the movie kicks off with the main character joining a small group headed to the Holy land to retake Jeruselam.
No one wore any armor except for the head guy of the crusading party,i'm not even sure it was armor,at first i thought he was wearing studded leather but upon closer inspection it looked like something thrown over his shirt that was made of solid rings but only covered a small area like a vest.Any help on this?
I finally got around to watching Valhalla Rising and i still have no clue what the point of the movie was.
They are apparently vikings but speak with Scottish accents,and at one point someone queries the protaginist if he is from one of the clans.Did vikings group in clans?
Did vikings drag their slaves around to pit in fights to the death for money?
Almost everyone had alot of tatoos..how common were they?At first i thought all the tattoing was to mark the slaves but the freemen had them too including one with a tatoo on his forehead.
I didn't think the Scots or the Norse really crusaded but the middle part of the movie kicks off with the main character joining a small group headed to the Holy land to retake Jeruselam.
No one wore any armor except for the head guy of the crusading party,i'm not even sure it was armor,at first i thought he was wearing studded leather but upon closer inspection it looked like something thrown over his shirt that was made of solid rings but only covered a small area like a vest.Any help on this?
Tattoos? News to me.
Clans? Well, they placed alot of importance in their family connections. As I understand it, clans work in much the same ways. Though he should have been asked who his father was.
Slaves fighting? News to me.
Crusading? They did. A Norwegian King even got the nickname Jorsalfar, meaning Jerusalem-farer.
Armour? Well, it was expensive. And I'm assuming (not having seen the movie) the characters were just free men doing their thing, not employed officials. I'm not sure how common armour was among people in those days.
I finally got around to watching Valhalla Rising and i still have no clue what the point of the movie was.
They are apparently vikings but speak with Scottish accents,and at one point someone queries the protaginist if he is from one of the clans.Did vikings group in clans?
They are supposed to be naturalised Norsemen, ie they have been settled in scotland for so long that they are hardly distiguishable from the natives. The Norsemen were a integral part of the formation of the Clans, many very large ones such as my own (MacDonald) have their roots in Norse settlers.
Did vikings drag their slaves around to pit in fights to the death for money?
Most likely not, I know the clansmen duels were fairly common so you could veiw it as a very early form of that.
Almost everyone had alot of tatoos..how common were they?At first i thought all the tattoing was to mark the slaves but the freemen had them too including one with a tatoo on his forehead.
While tattoos undoubtably existed I imagine thats just a bit of artists licence there.
I didn't think the Scots or the Norse really crusaded but the middle part of the movie kicks off with the main character joining a small group headed to the Holy land to retake Jeruselam.
Not AFAIK in large organised groups, but individually they would have, the guy in charge in the film is a essentailly a feudal christian lord so he would see it as his religious duty to do so. (Edit: Talking about the Scots here)
No one wore any armor except for the head guy of the crusading party,i'm not even sure it was armor,at first i thought he was wearing studded leather but upon closer inspection it looked like something thrown over his shirt that was made of solid rings but only covered a small area like a vest.Any help on this?
Again probably poetic licence, although I have to say it was rather refreshing for the film's characters to lack armour, it is a change from the unrealistic armoured to the hilt soldiers most films portray.
Cadwalader
14/08/10, 21:45
I agree, and it only makes it worse that the armour doesn't seem to protect them from even the most half-assed and awkward stabs and throws.
That's okay, though. The hero will just jerk the missile out and forget about it soon enough.
SillySirius
17/08/10, 04:45
Thanks for the answers.
The part about the armor didn't bother me.It looked like his son was wearing some type of heavy leather though.
stratigos vasilios
20/08/10, 09:14
Hey all,
Has anyone seen or heard of the 1997 series I Caesar? I tried to search the thread for any mentions of it but unfortunately I had no luck finding that exact phrase. It's surprising how often the letter "I" comes up in coversation...
Apologies if it was mentioned earlier, if anyone could link me or tell me the page number that'd be great. Otherwise if it hasn't been mentioned, has anyone heard of it before? I saw it at my local library and I am keen to borrow it if it is accurate.
Thanks
TancredTheNorman
21/08/10, 05:07
Centurion was a dissapointment from the point of view of historical accuracy, but I found something that makes Centurion seem perfect. I rank The Davinci Code series as equal to Spartacus Blood and Sand, which is very low.
Another low ranker in my opinion is Tristan and Isolde, not so much for historical accuracy (it is based on mythology, plate mail lorica segmentata and the pope being able to call on arcane magic would have been acceptable). I just think the version passed down from the dark ages is superior in every single conceivable way, it is the single best Arthurian Romance and it was butchered to the point where it really should have brought up new names, new settings and not pretended to be based on something Arthurian.
Robin Hood is a low ranker for the same reason, why do people feel the best of our myths need to desperately have their heads chopped off and get rewritten from scratch as nationalist thrillers with a lot of blood and guts?
Rant over, it just had to be said that all the great cherished myths and legends deserve attention with the historicals, change is ok and sometimes good it's only when the change is the Tristan/Robin Hood level that it really deserves mention here.
Fair points, but the OT is to discuss the films that got it (mostly) right.
SillySirius
21/08/10, 22:06
I just reread through the thread,even the parts i skipped before because everyone was talking about 300/DW and now realize Valhalla Rising was mentioned,and i was suprised to see nobody once mentioned Ken Burns the Civil War as a prime example of a great documentary.
I keep hoping PBS reshows it at some point.Either that or i could quit being cheap and buy it.
Don't know if anybody mention it, but how about Henry V?
I find it quite accurate, giving the theatrical structure...
Noble Wrath
25/08/10, 15:19
I learnt about Valhalla Rising from this thread. I can't really comment on its historical accuracy (or its lack of it) since my knowledge of this era is sketchy, although I seems that the poverty, the brutality of the warriors and the muddy photography are closer to the truth than the usual Vikings with horned helmets and huge war axes.
About its meaning, it is deliberately left blurry and undefined; I got the impression that the historical background was just coincidental, that the same themes could be explored in, say, a science fiction movie. At some points the movie becomes rather psychedelic and the landscapes are just breathtaking. I have come to a personal interpretation of the scenario: that One-Eye is a manifestation of Odin and the journey to America is actually a journey to hell. This fits with the end when the sole survivor is a boy. It seems compatible with Nordic eschatology: the Gods perish in the Ragnarok and the only survivors are a man and a woman (in the film One-Eye actually sacrifices himself so that the boy will live).
Other interpretations are possible: the Crusaders represent the will of man to control nature (Christianity here could be conceived as a product of the urbanised Roman Empire and in definite contrast to the more naturalistic Nordic Paganism). It is notable that the expedition leader planned to colonise against all odds the new land. In this context One-Eye and the muddy Indians can be seen as forces of nature, ferocious and uncontrollable.
Or one would argue that the journey brought into the light the inner motivations of each character: the silent (that is unsociable) One-Eye, the man who was consumed by his hatred, found true meaning in sacrifice for the others, a Pagan Jesus of sorts, where as the pious Crusaders when faced with insurmountable difficulties exhibited suspicion, treachery and lust for power.
In any case the movie left a deep impression on me and I would like to thank the guy who brought it up.
Badass Buddha
07/09/10, 23:19
Don't know if anybody mention it, but how about Henry V?
I find it quite accurate, giving the theatrical structure...
The thing about Henry V (both versions) is that while they are true to the play and have good technical accuracy (but for a couple glaring flaws), as Tancred the Norman pointed out earlier, it's overly idealized and sanitized, detracting from its historical accuracy.
I know, but I think that an objective movie will be appreciated by a small community, so it won't be produced by anyone (unfortunately)...
fightermedic
08/09/10, 12:35
cant help it but i REALLY like that "the last legion" one...
total crap in historical terms but nice movie still
Although quite silly, but I also have to admit The last Legion's story has some appeal to me.:sweatdrop:
An old legion from the high empire emerges out of thin air in the last days of empire to save Rome from destruction, or even restore her to former glory, what a dream.
Maybe one day I will try to play a mod set in late empire like IB or IB II, but unfortunately they don't give me a Roman anti-reform to convert those poor soldiers back into the legions of Trajan...
don't expect Hollywood to make accurate movie. they just making profit, not historically accurate
My sentiments exactly! Hawooh.
Although quite silly, but I also have to admit The last Legion's story has some appeal to me.:sweatdrop:
An old legion from the high empire emerges out of thin air in the last days of empire to save Rome from destruction, or even restore her to former glory, what a dream.
Yeah, it's building on the "Lost Army reappearing" trope. Certainly has a sort of romantic appeal.
Mouzafphaerre
10/09/10, 14:21
.
I don't know if 1066 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1329539/) has been mentioned but its battle sequences stroke me as depicted quite accurately.
.
SillySirius
13/09/10, 01:20
My sentiments exactly! Hawooh.
If they produced historically accurate films for every movie set in the past then everybody would be complaining that they were nothing but six hour snorefests that only about a half dozen anal retentive types would actually enjoy.
I think the main problem with hollywood though is that they believe the film going public is stupid,which is not the case,or that many studios do not want to put out the money to do historically accurate "niche" movies for little or no return on their investment
The bottom line is that people go to the theater to be entertained and to escape for a couple hours,not to be given history lessons.
The best case is when people go to see a movie like Gladiator,or The Patriot,or 300 that the movie actually gets them interested enough in the subject to learn more about it.
to be fair if the movies where entirelly historical accurate they would be named documentaries ... altough alot of errors do piss me off like the wrong type of swords being used (there just aren´t enough kontos in the herculean 50´s films)
Here is my take on this issue.
I think trying to define historical accuracy of any period is problematic for several reasons. The biggest reason, and the most applicable one to this debate, is that films are in and of themselves historical sources. Films made today, or yesterday, or 10 years ago, or even 10 years from now all come out of a social, cultural, and historical context. In this regard, the films, whether they depict events in the past, present, or future, are really depicting mentalities and values that people like today.
There are of course going to be a few that will stand out in various ways, and that do depict things in differing views. Combine with this the challenges in knowing anything, "exactly" from any time period as many historians are limited to a few documents, by a few people, or a few archaeological sites, in a few places. Out of this, one cannot gain "perfect" truth, so as far as I watch films, I see them as interpretations of events through the lens of the present.
With that perspective all films become historically accurate, but not necessarily to the time period presented.
SillySirius
14/09/10, 10:08
When me and my dad saw Saving Private Ryan he said that the D-Day landing was the most realisic depiction of combat he ever saw and this was coming from someone who saw combat in 1968..or almost a quarter century latter.
So take from that what you will.
The most interseting part,at least from my perspective,was after they broke out of the beach and were moving up through a trench and dudes were getting dropped and everyone else was moving past them like nothing happened even if they got shot right in front of them..He said thats what they were trained to do and i thought it was heartless and he said i wouldnd't understand but you don't stop until you take your objective no matter what even if it was your best bud hit in front of you.
Yeah, the soldier's is a tough life...
My great grandpa used to say that the people who think just for a sec die...
It's all about training and the instinct it develops...
Prussian to the Iron
19/09/10, 16:37
Kingdom of Heaven is actually quite accurate. The character Balien actually did exist, but was born in Holy Land, but this is likely due to Ridley Scott making a character so sympathetic, he wouldn't get in trouble for a "pro-crusader" movie, which is kind of a touchy subject these days. For the most part, the directors cut it otherwise pretty close to what happened, minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing. Reynald of Chatillion was very well portrayed and
His death is generally excepted to have happened exactly like that, due to the Muslim tradition that you cannot kill a captive you have offered hospitality
The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. Also Saladin didn't just let the people of Jerusalem leave.
Oh and Although perhaps the cheesiest part of the film, the real Balien really did knight about 50 men at arms during the siege of Jerusalem, although I'm sure in a slightly less dramatic fashion, although likely for the same reasons
Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.
Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.
On the other hand, Robin Hood was not only totally historically innacurate, but also innacurate to the Robin Hood story. D-Day naval invasions of Britain, the defense against which is led by some peasant and a woman, and King Richard was just killed? totally innacurate on every end of the spectrum.
Saladin didn't just let the people of Jerusalem leave.
Correct, at first he said he would repay the Crusaders the same way as they'd done in in 1099. Then Balian gave his monologue about how they'd burn the Dome of the Rock to the ground and kill every man, woman and child and all the Saracen captives (5,000 in total). At that point, Saladin discussed with his advisors, and he gave the Christians free passage if every man would pay 10 dinars, every woman 5 and every child (of both sexes) 2 dinars. If they would not pay (and not leave), they'd be sold into slavery. Balian proceeded to ransom all the poor for a total amount of 30,000 dinars, to which Saladin complied.
It has to be said though, that after the Bishop of Jerusalem had left with all the treasure, and some people were unable to leave the city, Saladin, his brother, and his brother in-law paid for the free passage of those people out of their own treasury.
just watched two more eastern and not really EB timeframe movies: "Red Cliff" and "Legend of goemon"
first was actually quite nice tho it reminded me a lot of the illias with the company of heroes/lords/generals and the camera tracks where ... "exotic" maybe that's just my western opinion. for a layman the armor and equipment looked ok although I doubt the battle really worked the way shown in the movie.
second one actually beat 300 in anachronisms and well pretty much every other field there is. I was actually only slightly annoyed(chinese uniforms, egytian style pandoras box, untill Nobunaga showed up in a red full plate armor and a double bladed double sided sword, funnily he later stood infront of a gothic window. by then I could ignore the gatling cannons and stromtrooper samurai and ...
not to mention the extreme jumpyness we often see in japanese media which(combined with the sword cult) surpassed Star wars in every way. I really wonder why they added a guardrail to the "bottomless pit".
has anyone else seen the two?
antisocialmunky
23/09/10, 14:07
Red Cliff was pretty ridiculous in a totally awesome way. Doesn't really even follow the Romance of the Three Kingdoms that well either.
Trve Leveller
23/09/10, 14:55
Kingdom of Heaven was terrible in terms of historical accuracy (Ottoman renaissance armoury, saber wielding Saracens...), as was Gladiator and Robin Hood (Cate Blanchett is wearing a Sallet!)
@representation of Rome in Gladiator: Too clean and white. HBO's Rome is more accurate, painted temples, mud and graffitti.
Thing thats sucks about 90% of historical war movies is the unrealistic representation of armour. Yeah they spent a fortune to wear heavy armour that gets piercing by everything like its made of paper...
My list of accurate Films:
Flesh+Blood (About Landsknechts)
Alatriste (Most accurate depiction of warfare, weaponry, armour and clothing of such an early time since Cromwell)
Cromwell
Master and Commander (Unbelievable, an expansive hollywood movie thats accurate even in tiny details!)
Barry Lyndon
what exactly do you mean with ridiculous? the story which was really quite far off history at least from what the wiki article states or the equipment? I'm a total noob on Chinese non treasure fleet navy so I don't have a clue about the accuracy of the ships whereas the armor looked at least somewhat plausible(unlike goemon). The tactics did not at all look very accurate but I'm no expert on chinese military.
mhhh more movies to check, YAY!
SillySirius
26/09/10, 01:45
I think a main problem with modern "Crusade" movies are that they are made for todays audience.
They fall into the same trap as my high school history teacher did teaching about the colonization of the Americas when she said it was based upon the 3 G's..Gold,Glory and God.
They use the most current socially acceptable and politically correct "interpration" of history.
Instead of looking at events in the context of history they look at them from the context of today.
Just my two cents.
antisocialmunky
26/09/10, 18:34
Story.
SillySirius
06/10/10, 07:11
Story.
From me?
reviewed the thread and i can't believe all the praise for saving private ryan.
ugh
i'm not going to start typing up all the inaccuracies with that film, but let me just say that they are GLARING and NUMEROUS. right down from typical hollywood fantasy endings with tiger tanks to the mindnumbingly poor tactical choices (why they couldn't just write a better plot defies me) and the general poor performance of hardened german soldiers.... who knows. good flick though, if pretty dated by now. wtf beach were they supposed to be landing at? ugh, so bothersome.
but anyway.
yeah the stormtrooper effect really makes a move take longer but is silly every time ;)
on the revived thread:
just watched "timeline" again and igronring all the obvious historical inaccuracies and stuff but wha reall made me laugh was that when the 100years war specialists(4 americans and one frenchman) get caught by the english they claim to be scots (and the french guy admits he's french duh! ) I mean c'mon!
I'm not an expert on anglo french relations
nor the 100year war
nor the 14th and 15th century
BUT I know that at all possible occasions the french were allied with the scots or at least sided with them against the English so why on earth did they have to claim that?!?!?! sure claiming you're scottish is rather smart confronted a french army but not when captured by the english.
why could they not simply say they're Welsh, or even english with their burgundian interpreter as burgundy was allied with england(at least it is in AoK :D )
a silly movie
Andronikos
19/01/11, 17:14
What do you guys think of Joan of Arc movie? I mean the better one with Leelee Sobieski as Joan and Neil Patrick Harris as dauphin. (I hope I don't mention it second time in this thread)
What do you guys think of Joan of Arc movie? I mean the better one with Leelee Sobieski as Joan and Neil Patrick Harris as dauphin. (I hope I don't mention it second time in this thread)
I like it several times better than the other one by Milla Jovovich [where, it seems to me, she was portrayed as a psychologically disturbed person] nor the old one with the Swedish actress what's-her-name. Not one of the three appears historically accurate to me, though. Hawooh.
D-Day naval invasions of Britain, the defense against which is led by some peasant and a woman, and King Richard was just killed? totally innacurate on every end of the spectrum.
This did occur a few times apart from Roman invasions...the battle of portsmouth harbour circa 500Ad was one of the first post Rome
http://nestmitchtri.blogspot.com/2009/03/battle-at-portsmouth-harbour.html
and after this the danes were all over us like a bad rash
Not saying it is accurate but....
Saving Private Ryan was good not because of its historical accuracy, but because of the fact that it showed the war in a more dramatic, gory and realistic way than most Hollywood movies do. To be honest, I don't really care about the film itself nor can I remember its plot. I do, however, remember the Omaha beach landing scene pretty well. This is how I think war should be presented in the movies. I don't know about you, but I hate pretentious and "heroic" films with pathetic battle scenes filled with slow motion effects, Spartan-like endurance of the "good" soldiers and idealised behaviour. Sometimes Hollywood can really kill movie themes with great potential. So much boring and unrealistic crap has been produced about Vietnam that nobody is bothered about this topic anymore.
Skullheadhq
06/07/11, 09:36
Don't know if this one has been mentioned before, The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqK-RuntywY) . One of the best documentaries I've seen. Historically accurate AFAIK and some good actors, like the one who plays William of Tyre. Constantinople and Alexios Komnenos however look very Persian, don't know if that is too accurate.
Don't know if this one has been mentioned before, The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqK-RuntywY) . One of the best documentaries I've seen. Historically accurate AFAIK and some good actors, like the one who plays William of Tyre. Constantinople and Alexios Komnenos however look very Persian, don't know if that is too accurate.
it certainly describes the basic events accurately; the equipment and weapons though, especially for the Muslim armies, is inaccurate IIRC.
Skullheadhq
15/07/11, 15:50
And what about The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FFDJK8jmms)?
....Flesh+Blood (About Landsknechts)...
Nasty grimy renaissance authenticity.
....Alatriste (Most accurate depiction of warfare, weaponry, armour and clothing of such an early time since Cromwell)...
Absolutely loved it, stylish stylish movie.
....Master and Commander (Unbelievable, an expansive hollywood movie thats accurate even in tiny details!)...
Wasn't there a bit of lore-rape? Not too bad as entertainment though.
....Barry Lyndon
Yeah but the comment about snooefest was apposite, this one took ages. great bit of film making for realism and cinematography and it was even true to the book more or less..which was alos a bit boring.
I like your taste though, I must have a look at Cromwell.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.