Funny realization occured...

[tapanojum]

...I was just watching Narnia (Old and Childish movie yes), and at the end there is this "big" battle. I thought to myself...why isn't this guy making a great morale boosting speech. Good thing his troops are located at the bottom of a hill, his range has an uphill advantage. I wonder where his cavalry is, how is he going to flank around like Alexander? A few central units of phalanxes would sure be useful in pinning down the front ranks.

Then it hit me... TOO MUCH EB FOR ME! I'm having these thoughts during a freaking children's movie..haha :laugh4:

anyone had a similar experience?


The kid sucks as a commander btw haha :wall:

[Pharnakes]

Yes, this happens to me al the time, whenever I read a book or watch a film, I keep thinking what an absolute moron, I could have done it so much better.

[tapanojum]

The one film that made me almost pass out from how dumb it was. Wind Talkers, with Nicholas Cage.

The army used a native American language to dispatch coded messages to HQ since all their other codes were intercepted and deciphered by Nazi Germany and Japan during WWII.

This movie had people risking their lives to have these "Code Capable" men dispatch these "Secret" and indecipherable codes for the stupidest reasons. Such as requesting an artillery strike on a fortified position, in which this strike will arrive in under a minute.

Because within 1 minute, the enemy will be able to evacuate their fortified position of hundreds of men if the transmission was given in any language but this hard to crack code. Such stupidity...


As a side note...while watching this Narnia...the commander ordered a full scale retreat and I thought to myself "But you will take heavy losses when turning your back on the enemy" haha.

Then I almost fell out of my chair when I saw they retreated into a valley where they have archers perched on top...why not fight their in the first place rather than battle on an open field while outnumbered.

I think I'm an ass for going so harshly on this children's movie hehe

[antisocialmunky]

Well, I don't see how calling in close air support and artillery is a stupid reason. Its actually one of the things that they did in real life though it included more types of things dealing with sensitive information.

[tapanojum]

Well, I don't see how calling in close air support and artillery is a stupid reason. Its actually one of the things that they did in real life though it included more types of things dealing with sensitive information.

Sorry if I didn't make sense.

One of the scenes was a small fortified position with a machine gun turret pinning some troops down. They already had cannons from a nearby battleship (Not air support) pointing in the general direction and all that was required was a quick radio call asking for cannon support and giving the exact location of the enemy placement.

Men died to get this code talker over to a radio to do this..in which he speaks the code in and 30 seconds the enemy fortification explodes. It doesn't matter if the enemy knew of this or not.

I agree, the code is really valuable for sensitive information..such as troop locations, movements, etc. The movie failed to provide any scenes where the code was used for any sensitive information, the only times the code was used was for immediate things such as a the example given above.

[TWFanatic]

Yes, this happens to me al the time, whenever I read a book or watch a film, I keep thinking what an absolute moron, I could have done it so much better.
Hehe, I know what you mean. I'm always yelling at the moron on the TV set within my mind.

"Hold back the reserves! No, don't charge you idiot! Flank now, damn you!"

Was like that with LoTR. I kept yelling at the incredulously stupid "men" for breaking formation and fighting the orcs in 1-1 combat. Same went for Gladiator and many other movies. Can't help myself.

I feel your pain tapanojum.:shame:

[LordofUmbar]

Was like that with LoTR. I kept yelling at the incredulously stupid "men" for breaking formation and fighting the orcs in 1-1 combat.

I never figured out why Aragorn ordered a charge after one volley once the orcs broke through the walls in Helms Deep.

Idiot, just keep firing until all the arrows are gone

He should have done some more :book: about military strategy.:wall:

As for Narnia.....

They need a better leader who doen't retreat after lossing 10 fighters.:laugh4:

[Sakkura]

I agree, the code is really valuable for sensitive information..such as troop locations, movements, etc. The movie failed to provide any scenes where the code was used for any sensitive information, the only times the code was used was for immediate things such as a the example given above.
Exactly. Information about the location, movement and planned maneuvers of your own troops are FAR more sensitive than information about the location of the enemy, or the calling in of artillery/airstrike/etc. against them. The enemy bloody well know where they are, and for immediate orders (like calling in artillery fire), they wont have time to react on the signals intelligence anyway.

[Moosemanmoo]

I never figured out why Aragorn ordered a charge after one volley once the orcs broke through the walls in Helms Deep.

Idiot, just keep firing until all the arrows are gone

He should have done some more :book: about military strategy.:wall:

:


Lol I felt the same way about that, and how several elves literally ran head on into the pikes, I appreciate they were running slightly downhill, but I thought they were nimble:gah:

And yeah they should have just kept on firing :smg:



@TWFanatic- Am I right in thinking you meant the men of minas tirith in the return of the king, cause if so I agree, they can't form a line, nevermind hold one

I remember wondering where the hell is the shield wall?

:2cents:

[Pharnakes]

And the orcs who run from the rohrim, I mean, I end up wanting them to win, I think, your f***ing pikmen, hold the line, damn, you hold the f***ing line, noooo don't turn you backs, what good is that going to do??

And, why why, why, do you have all those mumakil and wolf cavalry, and not put out anti cav screens? I mean the wolf cav would be perfect for scarring off the horses, and elephant type things have aways made superb anti cav screens. They've not got infantry back up, all you need to do is make the horses balk, and then counter charge. I mean, what a bunch of complete 20watt morons.

:gah:

As for that manbeast and her dual sword hamstringing thing, just Gah, Gah, GAH!!!!

Women should stay at home and leave fighting to the men!!

when she gets hit with that mace, it should snap her arm like a twig, and break a half a dozen ribs as well.

:skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:


I hate her.


Sorry, just had to say al that.:shame:

[Sakkura]

I was expecting the Rohirrim to get cut down when they foolishly decided to stay in melee instead of pulling out for another charge. But then I found out LOTR isn't realistic! Who would have guessed that?

[O'ETAIPOS]

In fact the book is much more realistic than film. In book Rohirim charge in the back of enemy who put all effort towards the wall. At the very start they mop up some inf screen and then just charge into unprepared mob in three huge wedges. Haradrim coutercharge with cav but are overpowered and then they send Mumakils.

I find the people who write scripts for films generaly do not care for any such thing as formation, battle order etc. Generaly theyre image of "battle" is huge mob mixed completely and fighting like if it was pub fight.

the stupidiest thing in LotR movie was the battle at the gate of Mordor when surrounded forces of gondor and Rohan instead of keeping good position just break formation and rush forward without any order.
Obviously in a book they just stand in circles on two hills and try to hold shield wall...
And the charge at Helm's Deep (that one that rushed from 45 degr slope not the "bridge charge"). Why oh God? Why? In reality they will just roll over... could't they just keep infantry descending from hills like in a book?

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

Not to go too off topic but has anyone seen the teaser for Prince Caspian? I like the greek style face plates for the cavalry in the new Narnia film. And BTW, are you talking about the cartoon or the live action Narnia? Because in the movie the good guys are on the top of a hill and do have cavalry.

I can't get too mad about formations and such. It's nice when I see it, but if they get the drama right I'm fine. Starship troopers had guys running like it was Stalingrad with no backup. But the moment before the drop was pretty emotional so that made it good. Films are supposed to be exciting and focusing on protocol and forming up the ranks is boring without spicing it up a little I.e some guy fighting away from his formation, flaming arrows and logs or what have you.

[Pharnakes]

Not to go too off topic

This thread has a topic?:inquisitive:


You amaze me sir. :bow:

[LordofUmbar]

I find the people who write scripts for films generaly do not care for any such thing as formation, battle order etc. Generaly theyre image of "battle" is huge mob mixed completely and fighting like if it was pub fight.

When was the last time you saw a script writer who had any military knowledge. They should make people at movie making school play TW games so they can learn a thing or two about military strategy.

[Eyes330]

Lol I felt the same way about that, and how several elves literally ran head on into the pikes, I appreciate they were running slightly downhill, but I thought they were nimble:gah:

And yeah they should have just kept on firing :smg:


I feel the same way (don't we all). There are so many moments in the LOTR movies where I wish I could just take command for a second and show the elves and Rohirrim :charge: (and the movie makers) how real life battles work. Every time I watch it, I keep thinking I could have done things better.

[O'ETAIPOS]

One other thing about Helms Deep battle - in the book Legolas say sth like:
"If a hundred of my fellow elves were here, we will shot them all".

In movie you have at least 300 elves....

[Reno Melitensis]

We are playing toooooo much EB:inquisitive:

EB team needs to hire a psychologist to give free advice on this forum.:wall: Any one interested.

Cheers

[Hooahguy]

my friends mom is a psychologist..... lol

[tapanojum]

Starship troopers...... I understand the opening scene where they first drop because they thought they would just shoot up some bugs...but when they repeatedly send nonstop waves of infantry that whole movie with no armoured vehicles or anything of that type...that depressed me

and the fact that their entire space fleet just hovered above the planet within range of that explosive bug plasma sh!t and the entire fleet got shot down...very..ugh..

[Spoofa]

One other thing about Helms Deep battle - in the book Legolas say sth like:
"If a hundred of my fellow elves were here, we will shot them all".

In movie you have at least 300 elves....


yeah but in the books there were no elven reinforcements :wall:

[Eduorius]

Well Orlando Bloom was a better commander and soldier in Kingdom of Heaven.

[russia almighty]

If I were the commander in the battle at the end of Narnia I'd of SOMEHOW gotten ahold of armored indian elephants .


And maybe some kataphraktoi . Hey Ice Queen I hope you like Konto's shoved up your rear's ass !

[tapanojum]

I liked his centaur cavalry tho..no need to train your horse since you are the horse...can repeatedly charge flanks...too bad they were the front line troops..lol

I personally would of lilked the Griphon ass my bodygaurd unit..too bad in the movie 1 single arrow takes each one down..lol

[antisocialmunky]

Starship troopers...... I understand the opening scene where they first drop because they thought they would just shoot up some bugs...but when they repeatedly send nonstop waves of infantry that whole movie with no armoured vehicles or anything of that type...that depressed me

and the fact that their entire space fleet just hovered above the planet within range of that explosive bug plasma sh!t and the entire fleet got shot down...very..ugh..

Yeah... that was pretty retarded... but atleast someone got fired for it. The book was like 100x and is actually required reading for Westpoint and the cartoon is atleast 10x better.

I do find myself yelling at a fair share of movies but I'll over look it if it has a good story and is mildly entertaining.:beam:

[Sakkura]

Starship troopers...... I understand the opening scene where they first drop because they thought they would just shoot up some bugs...but when they repeatedly send nonstop waves of infantry that whole movie with no armoured vehicles or anything of that type...that depressed me

and the fact that their entire space fleet just hovered above the planet within range of that explosive bug plasma sh!t and the entire fleet got shot down...very..ugh..
The movie is, the way I see it, deliberately silly in the way things are conducted. This goes to the braindead battle tactics as well as everything else.

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

Yeah... that was pretty retarded... but atleast someone got fired for it. The book was like 100x and is actually required reading for Westpoint and the cartoon is atleast 10x better.

I do find myself yelling at a fair share of movies but I'll over look it if it has a good story and is mildly entertaining.:beam:

It's a love it or hate it film. I actually was bored and put the book down. Unemotional and too detailed for what actually goes on in the book. Liked the power armor though and how the capital ships shot them towards the ground. Yeah the marine corp has taken a love to the book the second it was published. They're even trying to create the stuff in the book.

It's easier to overlook the tactical thing when you see the movie as a parody which is the obvious intention.

[tapanojum]

It's a love it or hate it film. I actually was bored and put the book down. Unemotional and too detailed for what actually goes on in the book. Liked the power armor though and how the capital ships shot them towards the ground. Yeah the marine corp has taken a love to the book the second it was published. They're even trying to create the stuff in the book.

It's easier to overlook the tactical thing when you see the movie as a parody which is the obvious intention.


I guess I should of realized this when the guy was riding a bug like a bull, shot through its back, threw a grenade into it. Then later climbed down and said he was captain of his football team...ha

[Beefy187]

I hate it when the hero gets captured instead of getting killed strait away.:sweatdrop:

[tapanojum]

I hate it when the hero gets captured instead of getting killed strait away.:sweatdrop:

I hate it when in movies the hero is about to get killed...but for some reason the bad guy talks for 15 minutes and takes another 20 to thrust the sword or pull the trigger...which by this time..the entire town is there to stop him/her.

[Mouzafphaerre]

One other thing about Helms Deep battle - in the book Legolas say sth like:
"If a hundred of my fellow elves were here, we will shot them all".

In movie you have at least 300 elves....
.
In reality the book no Elf support arrives in Helm's Deep. It simply can't happen because both Lothlórien and Mirkwood/Dale are under attack at that time.

After reading the books, I can no longer stand watching the movies; and whenever I see a bunch of idiots petitioning for PJ to rape film The Hobbit I want to feed them to werewolves. :yes:

The worst thing about the movies is...well, maybe the best thing...hell, I dunno! ~:rolleyes: They made me wonder what the hell this Tolkien craze in the net was about and read the books. Now I'm a Middle-earth nerd beyond the hope of recovery. :book2:
.

[Pharnakes]

I hate hiow people always boast, good and bad.

And then it aways goes wrong. WHat do you expect if you take half an hour to tell your enemy your secrets?

Morons. Imbeciles. Guilble idiots.

[J.Alco]

IMO the only film that comes close to representing realistic historic combat is Alexander (not a great film, I know, but the battle scenes are masterpieces).

And I agree, with Narnia, the kid (what was his name?) in charge of the army could have done it SO much better. For god's sake man! You've got rocky terrain behind you and a cliff at your back! You wanna neutralize superior numbers look no further you douchebag!

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

Now I had been in charge, there woulda been some changes in that army I can tell ya!

[tapanojum]

IMO the only film that comes close to representing realistic historic combat is Alexander (not a great film, I know, but the battle scenes are masterpieces).

And I agree, with Narnia, the kid (what was his name?) in charge of the army could have done it SO much better. For god's sake man! You've got rocky terrain behind you and a cliff at your back! You wanna neutralize superior numbers look no further you douchebag!

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

Now I had been in charge, there woulda been some changes in that army I can tell ya!

He had Gryphon's carrying freaking boulders and dropping them on the army....pinpoint and mobile siege . Imagine if he fought inside the valley where the enemy is funneled into, and massed together and THEN dropping those boulders..

...stupid lil kid :beam:

[Vasiliyi]

Lol, I got the same problem but its not really movies, its more my brother... He's a horrible tactition! Absoliutly horrible.. And he prefers to play rtw bi! Wow, ok here's an example of his "ignorance" he is fighting about 6 units of limitasae, and he has about 15 units of levy spearmen, and the rest extremely good horse archers! (His battle difficulty was on easy) the limitasae routed about 1000 of his troops, before he was able to rout them! Ignorance. Trust me guys, it would have been an extrmely easy battle to win. Any others suffer siblilng stupidity?

[Moosemanmoo]

Any others suffer siblilng stupidity?

More of sibling non interest, my brother couln't care less and my sister plays the sims, which actually I would count as stupidity


seriously guys, whats the point of a non violent computer game:gah:

[Hooahguy]

...to satisfly their simple minds......
what other reason is there?

[Tellos Athenaios]

More of sibling non interest, my brother couln't care less and my sister plays the sims, which actually I would count as stupidity


seriously guys, whats the point of a non violent computer game:gah:

As with any game: to enjoy. I suppose. My sister plays the Sims as well, and the only urge I feel when I see her is to say: "that's not even close to being realistic". I mean ever noticed those 'models'?

Actually my sister did play EB 0.74. for a while as Baktria... she was always a bit nervous about the battles with the AS, though. :inquisitive:

[Moosemanmoo]

I'll only ever play the sims if I can find a mod that will allow me to hire some naked celtic maniacs and massacre people
:viking:

[antisocialmunky]

I'm not sure aobut the massacre people, but a couple naked celtic maniacs doing some unspeakable things is (quite) doable.

[Moosemanmoo]

just as good

[tapanojum]

More of sibling non interest, my brother couln't care less and my sister plays the sims, which actually I would count as stupidity


seriously guys, whats the point of a non violent computer game:gah:

The Sims is a strange game to play..you are living out other peoples lives because your own is too boring or pathetic? I never understood the whole point of living other peoples lives..

[wumpus]

...I was just watching Narnia (Old and Childish movie yes), and at the end there is this "big" battle. ...

Then it hit me... TOO MUCH EB FOR ME! I'm having these thoughts during a freaking children's movie..haha :laugh4:

anyone had a similar experience?
The kid sucks as a commander btw haha :wall:

Yes, this thing happens in many--too many, if you ask me--movies. And TV shows. It really bugs me to watch the armies of splendiferous heroes, supposedly intelligent commanders and all that--then to simply rush in a mad frontal assault and melee like drunken oafs in a brawl. (What? no double envelopment? no attacks in echelon? not even "softening up" with missiles before ordering the charge?) I call you lucky: you realized this silly experience while watching a show for kiddies--what about in a show that's dead serious about a presentation for adult consumption?
(And I've just began doing EB 2 days ago...I was doing vanilla RTW a long time before then.)

[Boyar Son]

I never figured out why Aragorn ordered a charge after one volley once the orcs broke through the walls in Helms Deep.

Idiot, just keep firing until all the arrows are gone

:

well they DO need to block them from getting most of their forces into the breach.

but what he'd charge against? pikeorcs? if so pretty dumb and ya should've had spearman there to engage...

[Tellos Athenaios]

The Sims is a strange game to play..you are living out other peoples lives because your own is too boring or pathetic? I never understood the whole point of living other peoples lives..

Dollhouse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollhouse)

[antisocialmunky]

well they DO need to block them from getting most of their forces into the breach.

but what he'd charge against? pikeorcs? if so pretty dumb and ya should've had spearman there to engage...

Return of the King made me laugh since the only things that died faster than Orcs were those Gondorians running around in their crazy heavy armor lol. I kept wanting to see them form a pike phalanx when Grond bashed through the gate since they had big shields and pikes but no...

Also would like to see movie armor that WORKS IN THE MOVIE. If you ever watched Troy in an intellegent way(which is probably the last time you're ever going to watch that thing), you know what I mean.

> Yes, bronze swords will go cleanly through leather and metal scale. <

:smash:

Probably my favorite movie battle is the "Fall of Carthage" from Gladiator since how they defeated the charioteers made sense and was entertaining and Joaquin Phoenix made a funny face. :laugh4:

[tapanojum]

Probably my favorite movie battle is the "Fall of Carthage" from Gladiator since how they defeated the charioteers made sense and was entertaining and Joaquin Phoenix made a funny face. :laugh4:

Yes! I loved that part!

[Rodion Romanovich]

Agreed, and it was also a demonstration that semi-realistic tactics can be combined with the climactic/epic emotional aspect the producers use as an excuse for screwing up battles in all other contexts.

Some good comments in here, especially the charge from the circle in LoTR3, and the part about Windtalkers made me laugh for several minutes! And the comment about battles looking like messy pub fighting :2thumbsup:

Some older movies had a lot more interesting battle scenes IIRC, basically look for stuff made between 1920 and 1965... IIRC Ivanhoe is quite good, for example. Some Alistair Maclean movies are also pretty nice. As for newer war movies, the Thin Red Line is probably the most realistic one I've seen. KoH had one good battle scene, and that was the big suicide charge (not even an idiot can make very unrealistic choreography for a suicide charge, since the very point is that they give up all attempts of using tactics), apart from that it was pretty crappy battles.

[antisocialmunky]

Agreed, and it was also a demonstration that semi-realistic tactics can be combined with the climactic/epic emotional aspect the producers use as an excuse for screwing up battles in all other contexts.

Some good comments in here, especially the charge from the circle in LoTR3, and the part about Windtalkers made me laugh for several minutes! And the comment about battles looking like messy pub fighting :2thumbsup:

Some older movies had a lot more interesting battle scenes IIRC, basically look for stuff made between 1920 and 1965... IIRC Ivanhoe is quite good, for example. Some Alistair Maclean movies are also pretty nice. As for newer war movies, the Thin Red Line is probably the most realistic one I've seen. KoH had one good battle scene, and that was the big suicide charge (not even an idiot can make very unrealistic choreography for a suicide charge, since the very point is that they give up all attempts of using tactics), apart from that it was pretty crappy battles.

I've always heard that one of the things the knightly orders did was to charge into impossible odds against Arab cavalry since it did somehow work enough to warrant it.

Though, one interesting thing that was pointed out in the commentary was how the writing team thought up a way of figuring out when to fire siege weapons by having guys go out and mark the average range of their various weapons. :yes:

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I watched it a few days ago and I was surprised. I thought it would be utter crap but it was quite good. I wasn't toooooo emotive and the siege battle really pleased me. The only thing I didn't understand was how could the knights from Jerusalem visit the fallen Templars and go back to the city immediately, whereas Saladin and his troops "would need four or five days"? And what happened to Saladin's sister?

The utmost crap regarding historical correctness I've ever seen is King Arthur.

[antisocialmunky]

And what happened to Saladin's sister?

The utmost crap regarding historical correctness I've ever seen is King Arthur.

No one knows and no one is telling.

[gosam]

I hate hiow people always boast, good and bad.

And then it aways goes wrong. WHat do you expect if you take half an hour to tell your enemy your secrets?

Morons. Imbeciles. Guilble idiots.

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

[Lysander13]

The utmost crap regarding historical correctness I've ever seen is King Arthur.
You were watching the movie with the wrong frame of mind. You were only suppose to pay close attention when Keira Knightley was on the screen. :clown:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
:kiss2:
.

[fatsweets]

People,

Has anyone seen the movie "Braveheart" from 1995, I find it very hard to believe out of all the answers in this post regarding war movies, no one mentioned this movie. If you want to cry seeing a movie this is the movie you should see. Realistic medieval battles, betrayal, torture, if this is the stuff you like this is the movie for you. Fully recommend and I'm sorry if this got a little off topic. By the way didn't shed a tear till the last 20 minutes. A must see for all war movie buffs.

[Beefy187]

You were watching the movie with the wrong frame of mind. You were only suppose to pay close attention when Keira Knightley was on the screen. :clown:

Only until she goes around naked screaming and swinging knife that is... Then you pay extra close attention

Its bit new but I hate watching Russians fighting in WW2. For example the movie "Enemy at the gates" Yea just make the poor Russians charge against the machinegun and expect them not to run away.

[J.Alco]

People,

Has anyone seen the movie "Braveheart" from 1995, I find it very hard to believe out of all the answers in this post regarding war movies, no one mentioned this movie. If you want to cry seeing a movie this is the movie you should see. Realistic medieval battles, betrayal, torture, if this is the stuff you like this is the movie for you. Fully recommend and I'm sorry if this got a little off topic. By the way didn't shed a tear till the last 20 minutes. A must see for all war movie buffs.


This is gonna sound rude, so I apologise in advance. The only reason I would cry at watching Braveheart was simply at just how ABSOLUTELY STUPID AND WRONG IT WAS!!

Realistic medieval battles? Seriously?? I mean, are you really serious??? It's about as realistic as M2TW! (and that was WORSE than RTW Vanilla in terms of realism!), or as realistic as those History Channel docs that have Roman soldiers using the same bloody dress (Lorica segmentata) all the way from the founding of the Republic to the fall of Rome in 400-something AD.

Let's not even get started on the utterly phony sentimentalistic garbage spouted out regularly throughout which deals on and on and on with the vague concepts of 'love' and 'freedom' which, of course, ignore Wallace's true motivations and ideals and serves mainly to give a character who lived in the 14th century 21st (well allright, 20th) century attitudes and values, which is of course utter trash.

And NOT ONE of the battles/seiges that occur in the movie went the way they were portrayed in real life.

I could go on and on, of course, but then a bloody book the thickness of LOTR (all 3 books combined) could be written about Braveheart's historical innacuracies (which, BTW, if there's one out there I'd love to buy it).

Sorry about that, but after nearly 2 years of studying Scottish History, any mention of Braveheart, now that I know about how the real events transpired, pisses me off. Again, sorry for probably coming off rude.

...god I HAVE been playing too much EB...

EDIT
I'd like to add that the movie does have its saving graces. Namely its actors, who do an all-round good job, with Mel Gibson in particular deserving praise for playing his role with some humour, especially in the early scenes, which was refreshing. Of course, kudos must go to the guy (I forget his name) who was Edward Longshanks, as he made a really, really good villain who, surprisingly, seems to hate brown-nosers (if you're not convinced, keep in mind that he DOES toss a guy out of a window for being overly flattering. Oh, and being gay too)

[Sakkura]

Oh, Braveheart. Yeah that thing is just silly. They are running around in kilts all the time, which makes no sense. The princess, who in the movie falls in love with Wallace and all that, was ten years old when he died. The battle of Stirling is curiously missing a bridge and river. As most RTW players will know, bridges tend to have a major impact on battles, and Stirling was certainly no exception.

[Lysander13]

Only until she goes around naked screaming and swinging knife that is... Then you pay extra close attention
Exactly...Watching her run around with nothing but paint on basically...They could have switched the Merlin character with Gandalf for all i cared....:beam:

[fatsweets]

This is gonna sound rude, so I apologise in advance. The only reason I would cry at watching Braveheart was simply at just how ABSOLUTELY STUPID AND WRONG IT WAS!!

Realistic medieval battles? Seriously?? I mean, are you really serious??? It's about as realistic as M2TW! (and that was WORSE than RTW Vanilla in terms of realism!), or as realistic as those History Channel docs that have Roman soldiers using the same bloody dress (Lorica segmentata) all the way from the founding of the Republic to the fall of Rome in 400-something AD.

Let's not even get started on the utterly phony sentimentalistic garbage spouted out regularly throughout which deals on and on and on with the vague concepts of 'love' and 'freedom' which, of course, ignore Wallace's true motivations and ideals and serves mainly to give a character who lived in the 14th century 21st (well allright, 20th) century attitudes and values, which is of course utter trash.

And NOT ONE of the battles/seiges that occur in the movie went the way they were portrayed in real life.

I could go on and on, of course, but then a bloody book the thickness of LOTR (all 3 books combined) could be written about Braveheart's historical innacuracies (which, BTW, if there's one out there I'd love to buy it).

Sorry about that, but after nearly 2 years of studying Scottish History, any mention of Braveheart, now that I know about how the real events transpired, pisses me off. Again, sorry for probably coming off rude.

...god I HAVE been playing too much EB...

EDIT
I'd like to add that the movie does have its saving graces. Namely its actors, who do an all-round good job, with Mel Gibson in particular deserving praise for playing his role with some humour, especially in the early scenes, which was refreshing. Of course, kudos must go to the guy (I forget his name) who was Edward Longshanks, as he made a really, really good villain who, surprisingly, seems to hate brown-nosers (if you're not convinced, keep in mind that he DOES toss a guy out of a window for being overly flattering. Oh, and being gay too)
Maybe "realistic" isn't the best term I could have used, probably intense would have been better. But as far as movies go it was good and is there any war movie out there that is 100% accurate, if so I would like to know? and by the way no offense taken.

[Beefy187]

HBO Rome had couple pretty nice battles.

Gladiator opening scene was pretty good considering Marcus Aurelius wasnt much of a tactician. No wonder the battle turned in to chaos.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

[...]serves mainly to give a character who lived in the 14th century 21st (well allright, 20th) century attitudes and values, which is of course utter trash.
This is exactly no. 1 reason why I hate King Arthur.


You were watching the movie with the wrong frame of mind. You were only suppose to pay close attention when Keira Knightley was on the screen. :clown:
And that is exactly no... 13 reason or so why I hate King Arthur. I just hate Keira Knightley.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Well, I can't show you a 100% accurate historical movie, even a documentary; but if there's a nearly 100% inaccurate one, that's Braveheart. :yes:Even worse (about 125% inaccurate) are Turkish "Yeşil&#231;am" productions. :shame:
.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Only until she goes around naked screaming and swinging knife that is... Then you pay extra close attention

Its bit new but I hate watching Russians fighting in WW2. For example the movie "Enemy at the gates" Yea just make the poor Russians charge against the machinegun and expect them not to run away.

The problem is that this is actually accurate. Russian soliders were too terrified to run away. There are accounts of NKWD soliders (soviet political police) executing officers of a unit that broke out from encirclement becuse they violated order to stand and die.

In soviet winter offensive of 1941 cavalry division was ordered to charge across frozen river agains dug in german inf - they were almost totaly slaughtered and on german side there are reports of MG barrels melting as there was no time to replace them with spare ones.

In 1943 (44?) platton of german veterans held for 3 days soviet inf corps. Germans had enough MGs to arm most of soliders (1 per 3?) and soviets were asaulting through the gap between two forests, some 2km wide. After each wave was repelled they used art barrage. Germans obviously retreated before it fell. On the 3rd day one shell missed and hit close to place where germans retreated, killing commander and few soliders and so making rest retreat

[Skandaz.Imperator]

Aragorn got to have the "Poor Tactician"-trait. For example, what's the deal of holding the elves' fire in the Battle of Helms deep? These warriors are freakin' elves, not your average rohirrim farmer, and with their almost perfect aim and superior bowskills, they could be pouring arrows on the Uruk Hais as they stand in formation (right before the rush for the wall).

Also, in the final battle, Aragorn allows his army to be surrounded without any reaction. On the other hand, Sauron seems to have the "Terrible Tactician"-trait, so lucky for Aragorn

[Moosemanmoo]

People,

Has anyone seen the movie "Braveheart" from 1995, I find it very hard to believe out of all the answers in this post regarding war movies, no one mentioned this movie. If you want to cry seeing a movie this is the movie you should see. Realistic medieval battles, betrayal, torture, if this is the stuff you like this is the movie for you. Fully recommend and I'm sorry if this got a little off topic. By the way didn't shed a tear till the last 20 minutes. A must see for all war movie buffs.


Well if anyone can prove that 1 scottish soldier is the equal to 1000 english soldiers then you may just be correct

It's probably just me, but it's hard for me to watch Braveheart and The Patriot, both Gibson films that only tell us about how ugly, stupid and weak the English are.

I simply can't watch my fellow beloved redcoats be portrayed in this manner, It hurts my English soul.

Anyone else irritated by how invincible the "good guys" always are in these films, I love war films where the characters bleed as easily as their foes:2thumbsup: .




Okay I know "English" and "British" aren't the same, but for simplicities sake don't bring it up

:2cents:

[Moosemanmoo]

Anyone else irritated by how invincible the "good guys" always are in these films, I love war films where the characters bleed as easily as their foes:2thumbsup:




Actually I go back on that when I think of Han Solo blasting those stormies :smg:


BUT THATS THE ONLY EXCEPTION!

[Roman_Man#3]

Gallipoli was a pretty historical move for the trench life of WW1. But it also shows the stupidity and ignorance of some/many British Generals.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

It's probably just me, but it's hard for me to watch Braveheart and The Patriot, both Gibson films that only tell us about how ugly, stupid and weak the English are.
Hahaha, The Patriot is utter crap!

A movie I like is Gettysburg. 4 hours or longer but very good I think.

[antisocialmunky]

Hahaha, The Patriot is utter crap!

A movie I like is Gettysburg. 4 hours or longer but very good I think.

It was a good movie. Way better than its sequel.

[Sakkura]

Well if anyone can prove that 1 scottish soldier is the equal to 1000 english soldiers then you may just be correct

It's probably just me, but it's hard for me to watch Braveheart and The Patriot, both Gibson films that only tell us about how ugly, stupid and weak the English are.

I simply can't watch my fellow beloved redcoats be portrayed in this manner, It hurts my English soul.

Anyone else irritated by how invincible the "good guys" always are in these films, I love war films where the characters bleed as easily as their foes:2thumbsup: .

Okay I know "English" and "British" aren't the same, but for simplicities sake don't bring it up

:2cents:
Well I did watch Braveheart the other day, and there are at least a few points where Scots die. Mostly during the battle where they are betrayed and defeated (Falkirk?).

Braveheart has a lot of inaccuracies, but still ends up a half decent movie. The Patriot is just... Bad. It's as inaccurate as Braveheart, but distorts the image of the English far more than the other movie; Longshanks was quite ruthless in real life, even if he didn't actually institute ius prima noctes - but the English were actually trying to conduct themselves in a gentlemanly fashion in New England, so as not to alienate the loyalists. Didn't work of course, perhaps in part because they relied on German mercenaries (which the locals didn't appreciate very much at all).

[cmacq]

Now, there's true to the story and historical truth. The movie Braveheart was about 15.5% accurate to the story. In this case historical accuracy's not worth a mention. Not killing the English, Franco-Normans and those that served them. I don't think many could even speak much ME, mostly French? Actually, mr. Braveheart, by his name alone, was a Brit and not a scot. Hope that doesn't start too big a fire.

To the Brits in Gawga, they were a bit more closed-handed, as they killed POWs outright, after at least one battle.

Overall just more Gibson's wrongism.

[AntiochusIII]

Yes, this happens to me al the time, whenever I read a book or watch a film, I keep thinking what an absolute moron, I could have done it so much better.You said what I wanted to say, and better than I could. :2thumbsup:


Aragorn got to have the "Poor Tactician"-trait. For example, what's the deal of holding the elves' fire in the Battle of Helms deep? These warriors are freakin' elves, not your average rohirrim farmer, and with their almost perfect aim and superior bowskills, they could be pouring arrows on the Uruk Hais as they stand in formation (right before the rush for the wall).

Also, in the final battle, Aragorn allows his army to be surrounded without any reaction. On the other hand, Sauron seems to have the "Terrible Tactician"-trait, so lucky for AragornLike somebody said though, the books were more intelligent about it.

Not that Aragorn was a masterful tactician in the books or anything (T. Man obviously was less concerned with detailed tactics than he was with epicness or whatever literary allusions he was pursuing in his work; and the literary Hero never really needed to prove that he was remotely intelligent, just that he was Awesomely Blessed or whatever -- for example that idiot Achilles), but at least they weren't particularly dumb. And fantasy has its own rules in any case. If we are to believe Tolkien then the elves could've laid low humankind anytime they want with their haxx0rs skillz, but they weren't particularly inclined to do so because it's not in their nature to be building huge empires.

At least The Lord of the Rings was better than The Silmarillion though. In that book he just said that Fe&#228;nor's army was totally GAR and didn't even bother to explain how.

The Sims is a strange game to play..you are living out other peoples lives because your own is too boring or pathetic? I never understood the whole point of living other peoples lives..Welcome to escapism, or, oh, fiction. :yes:

[Beefy187]

The problem is that this is actually accurate. Russian soliders were too terrified to run away. There are accounts of NKWD soliders (soviet political police) executing officers of a unit that broke out from encirclement becuse they violated order to stand and die.

In soviet winter offensive of 1941 cavalry division was ordered to charge across frozen river agains dug in german inf - they were almost totaly slaughtered and on german side there are reports of MG barrels melting as there was no time to replace them with spare ones.

In 1943 (44?) platton of german veterans held for 3 days soviet inf corps. Germans had enough MGs to arm most of soliders (1 per 3?) and soviets were asaulting through the gap between two forests, some 2km wide. After each wave was repelled they used art barrage. Germans obviously retreated before it fell. On the 3rd day one shell missed and hit close to place where germans retreated, killing commander and few soliders and so making rest retreat

I know.. Russian/ Communist armys tradition.. Charge until they are out of bullets:wall:

Just saying if I was the commander I wouldve done more fancy stuff.

Didnt know what you wrote on the 3rd paragrath. Nice. :2thumbsup:

[Rodion Romanovich]

serves mainly to give a character who lived in the 14th century 21st (well allright, 20th) century attitudes and values, which is of course utter trash.
Even though Hollywood exaggerates the idealism of the main characters in their most recent (a)historical movies to ridiculous proportions, I also find it disgusting when the opposite is done, and every historical character is made a savage brute which completely lacks all forms of moral values and ideals, and is only driven by an urge for power and bloodshed. They used to do that in some 19th and early 20th century artistic media for example, to glorify the own time and society as morally superior, and depict all earlier people as demons. And then, seeing those works of art, my reaction was instead something along the lines: "you would be surprised how much of Medieval morality was similar to our own, if not in underlying theories in the morality system - 'divine truth' vs 'freedom as long as nobody gets hurt by it', then at least in what practical actions would be judged as wrong, and what actions would be judged as heroic". I guess art will never manage to take a balanced view of this, as with all other issues that get screwed up in their attempts at depicting historical situations. But it's also understandable if the criticism is relative instead of absolute, denoting only a direction. Historical accuracy is not about pushing something to its extreme, but to find the interval on all scales, in which things are realistic and believable.

I think that while Hollywood create similarities between historical cultures and our own where there were none, they also leave out a lot of actual true similarities. And those get even more obfuscated when all you can do while watching the movie is thinking of how wrong the invented similarities they present are... I guess Hollywood and others will be back at the "all historical cultures were packs of savage beasts" view again in 30-80 years from now.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Aragorn got to have the "Poor Tactician"-trait. For example, what's the deal of holding the elves' fire in the Battle of Helms deep? These warriors are freakin' elves, not your average rohirrim farmer, and with their almost perfect aim and superior bowskills, they could be pouring arrows on the Uruk Hais as they stand in formation (right before the rush for the wall).

Also, in the final battle, Aragorn allows his army to be surrounded without any reaction. On the other hand, Sauron seems to have the "Terrible Tactician"-trait, so lucky for Aragorn
Yeah, the circle formation followed by a charge, was a "I want my money back"-moment in that movie. But so was the elephant hamstring scene, Legolas climbing on the elephant in a way contrary to Newton's laws of physics, and Legolas' surfing on a shield in the previous movie.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

Even though Hollywood exaggerates the idealism of the main characters in their most recent (a)historical movies to ridiculous proportions, I also find it disgusting when the opposite is done, and every historical character is made a savage brute which completely lacks all forms of moral values and ideals, and is only driven by an urge for power and bloodshed.
HBO Rome. ~:handball: I suspect it's directly or indirectly responsible for a reasonable part of "i hatez Rome!1!1xorz" hooliganism. :shrug:

As I said before, I can't stand the LotR movies from the start since I came to read the books the first time.
.

[Beefy187]

I thought HBO Rome was amazing and it made me love Rome even more.
After all Augustus and Anthony did like women and Cleopatra was greek not Egyptian.

I thought Aragorn was wise to order the men not to shoot. Psycologically if he ordered to fire at will, soldiers rush too much and missand orcs would go psyco at them for shooting during what ever they were doing which makes the soldiers even more paniced. Just like the scene in "Last Samurai"

[antisocialmunky]

But they are elves. I think you see them machine gun arrows from the walls in one scene.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Yeah, the circle formation followed by a charge, was a "I want my money back"-moment in that movie. But so was the elephant hamstring scene, Legolas climbing on the elephant in a way contrary to Newton's laws of physics, and Legolas' surfing on a shield in the previous movie.

Legolas is an elf and this makes him bending laws of phisics a bit ~;) in book he is mentioned walking on the surface of deep, fresh snow almost without leaving marks on it, while Aragorn has to dig his way through. Same with seeing as far as horizon without problems conected to moving air and dust in the air.

[NeoSpartan]

Funny realization occured... my PC broke:wall: and my bro's PC can't handle EB :wall:

[Reno Melitensis]

One movie that show good tactical sense and realism is the old Spartacus movie staring Kirk Douglas. In the last battle Spartacus deployed his army on top of a hill, while Crasus army marched up hill, every cohort quite visible. The battle begins with the Romans sending their scouts uphill, the Atesigniani, while the rebels throw fired hey balls down hill. Then while the legions go uphill in an ordinary faction the rebels charge downhill ( they had no other choice, they where already domed ), smashing in the legions, and a chaotic hand to hand erupts, qiute a battle the gladiators are taught to win, but in the end superior number on the roman side wins the day.

Braveheart is the worst, both battles are wrong depicted, the Scots infantry is wrongly depicted. Arthur too is wrongly done , but the best one is that of the Sarmation firing his arrow at a target he is not seeing, hiding in a tree and score a perfect hit, but at least the Saxons knew what a shieldwall was.

Cheers

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

- but the English were actually trying to conduct themselves in a gentlemanly fashion in New England, so as not to alienate the loyalists. Didn't work of course, perhaps in part because they relied on German mercenaries (which the locals didn't appreciate very much at all).
Lol. They had such a nice little civilized war, but suddenly those Germans came along and suddenly people got killed...~;)

[JeffBag]

One movie that show good tactical sense and realism is the old Spartacus movie staring Kirk Douglas.

That Spartacus movie was incredible indeed; no retarded kungfu nonsense or whatever, the gladiators actually using tactics, and rolling logs down a hill to disrupt the legions, and no stereotypical character portrayal.

Another great movie was The Longest Day, about the D-Day. The German army was well portrayed, the firefights were realistic, ranging from the minor nighttime skirmishes of the US and British airborne and glider units, to the near suicidal ranger attack at Pont du Hoc, and finally to the beach landings and the attacks into the cities and towns near the end of the movie.

Oh, and the portrayal of the Russians in Enemy at the Gates was a little too extreme; true that deserters were shot, but the Red Army was never sent on blatant suicide rushes like that by the time of Stalingrad; Red Army tactics and doctrines was probably the best in Europe had Stalin not purged his army so terribly. Also, the depiction of the neatly uniformed soldiers given sharing one rifle between two, is grossly inaccurate too. The Mosin-Nagant was produced since 1891 and they had huge stocks of it in the armory. They probably had more rifles than uniforms, since the uniform was a much more recent change I believe. Also, the fighting in Stalingrad in the movie was ludicrous, I mean, there are dancing Russians at night? Just like both sides agreed to a ceasefire every night it would seem, and the buildings around them were all so empty. In reality, fighting was round the clock and very confused; buildings everywhere were occupied since being anywhere else was blatant suicide, and it was also not uncommon to have Germans on one floor, and the Russians on another, right in the same building, fighting for days.

[MiniMe]

JeffBag, you're completely wrong.
We, Ruskies are cowardly savage drunken barbarian horde, nothing more. This pretty explains everything, methinks. And if we on occasion have some ammo, we prefer to distribute all of it between NKVD machinegunners and go fight enemy barehanded. That is our wicked logic. That is how we win. Er, well, not exactly. The only reason we win is because of the weather. If we win during the winter, it is because of the harsh winter conditions. If we win during the summer, it is because of the hot summer.
Almost forgot to mention: afterwards if we, Ruskies, are lucky to survive, we go and copulate with bears.

One more thing: all, who oppose us, were tragic heroes, god bless them. Unfortunately, this way or that way, they were unlucky. This, and the weather conditions, and our russian savageness explain it all for me.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
:laugh4:
.

[Moosemanmoo]

JeffBag, you're completely wrong.
We, Ruskies are cowardly savage drunken barbarian horde, nothing more. This pretty explains everything, methinks. And if we on occasion have some ammo, we prefer to distribute all of it between NKVD machinegunners and go fight enemy barehanded. That is our wicked logic. That is how we win. Er, well, not exactly. The only reason we win is because of the weather. If we win during the winter, it is because of the harsh winter conditions. If we win during the summer, it is because of the hot summer.
Almost forgot to mention: afterwards if we, Ruskies, are lucky to survive, we go and copulate with bears.

One more thing: all, who oppose us, were tragic heroes, god bless them. Unfortunately, this way or that way, they were unlucky. This, and the weather conditions, and our russian savageness explain it all for me.


Oh no you didn't!:laugh4:

[Danest]

And here I was, about to say "how come nobody ever criticizes spartacus's inaccuracies?" I thought spartacus was almost nothing but propaganda to try to make the poor (as if spartacus represented the poor) look heroic, while making capitalists look evil. I thought Crassus was a popularis, anyway, but I'm not quite sure. *shrug* And since when did the slaves have access to more flame-based weapons and makeshift onagers than the Romans? Gibson isn't the only propagandist, just the one who gets bashed for it.

[antisocialmunky]

They beat enough Romans to have a tons of their stuff. I think they defeated like 3 legions or something like that.

[Moosemanmoo]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the power rangers. I grew up watching that crap, while other boys were cheering them on, I can remember asking how blue ranger didn't get cleaved in half by that massive sword, or why red ranger didn't get wasted by that machine gun:inquisitive:

Those were the lowest days of my life:shame:

[Horst Nordfink]

Spartacus is on TV right now! I've never seen it before, but I'm not expecting much.

[Andronikos]

What I think about some movies:
Alexander - I liked it, good movie with good battle scenes (showed only two battles and gave them time, better than 10 battles each one minute long) but I simply could not stand Angelina Jolie. I got an impression that Alex conquered Persia and went to India because he was runningy away from his mother (in EB terms he got one of that funny traits/anciliaries - something like bad mother I cannot remember).
King Arthur - I don't know, it was medium, nothing special and nothing extremely good, I could watch it from beginning to end without needing to switch (like Troy), but yes - supernatural archery abilities and so on. And finally I like more king Arthur legends with magic, saint graal, Arthur - Guinevere - Lancelot triangle, knights in flashy armour... :2thumbsup:
Troy - crap - seen only a little (I have read several versions of greek mythology and no one tells that Achilles had japanese/chinese ninja teacher of swordsmanship)
LotR - have PJ read the book? :inquisitive:
Narnia - upgraded fairy-tale, have not read it so that the movie did not broke my ideals from childhood, I found it nice.

[Danest]

To Aragorn's credit, that one final battle was meant to be suicidal. They _were_ going to die, strategy or not. The point was just to keep the orcs interested in cleaving them up, long enough for Frodo to do his thing. Strategy wasn't the point. Looking tasty and easy to kill was much more distracting to the orcs. ;)

[antisocialmunky]

To Aragorn's credit, that one final battle was meant to be suicidal. They _were_ going to die, strategy or not. The point was just to keep the orcs interested in cleaving them up, long enough for Frodo to do his thing. Strategy wasn't the point. Looking tasty and easy to kill was much more distracting to the orcs. ;)

Well, the question here isn't if they were going to die or not but how slowly they could die to give Frodo the longest time. Ergo, mooning Braveheart style and staying in the circle = win.:smash:

Except for the trolls and arrows and large rocks... That would be bad. Maybe if those Gondorians know how to actually use their pikes. But they didn't because they all sucked really really bad.

[the greek]

good point antisocialmunky ,
watching braveheart is horrible. my english siblings cheering on the scottish and the " ah but we have more heavy cavlry" bit it is infuriating

[alatar]

Braveheart is terrible, Scotland looks like a dark ages kingdom and they lay on the freedom stuff to much.
And the soap-ish things like the princess.http://www.neatorama.com/images/2006-07/william-wallace-braveheart-statue-caged.jpg

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Sophie Marceau was wasted in that crappy film. :no:

LotR - have PJ read the book? :inquisitive:
He's epitheted "illiterate" by many fans.

In the book, in the final battle, they make shield walls atop the hills and receive the enemy charge. Pippin kills a troll but its body falls upon him and he blacks out, faintly hearing Gandalf cheering "the eagles!" but dismissing it as an echo of Bilbo's tales. Mind you, Merry and Pippin aren't those Huckleberry Finn cartoons of the b-movies.
.

[antisocialmunky]

.
Sophie Marceau was wasted in that crappy film. :no:

He's epitheted "illiterate" by many fans.

In the book, in the final battle, they make shield walls atop the hills and receive the enemy charge. Pippin kills a troll but its body falls upon him and he blacks out, faintly hearing Gandalf cheering "the eagles!" but dismissing it as an echo of Bilbo's tales. Mind you, Merry and Pippin aren't those Huckleberry Finn cartoons of the b-movies.
.

I've always thought that movies and books were greatly differing mediums and approaches to story telling. I've never been a big fan of people panning movies for being unfaithful to the book. I think you should judge movies on their own merits and not their exact accuracy to the books. A painting can tell a story and elicit an emotional response but you can't retell a whole narrative through one picture. Likewise, the visual impact of the movie is elicits much more of an emotional climax than words and literary devices can. Its one thing to read Shakespeare, its a whole other thing to see the words spoken and performed. You infer and imply so much more with sound and images than you can in the written word in which you're limitted to hinting through connotation and straight forward statements.

IF the movie were like the books, the council of Elrond would be the whole freaking movie and so would be the weeks of wandering through the woods.

...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods...ORCS!!!!...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods... Cave Troll!:2thumbsup:

[Senatus Populusque Romanus]

I never figured out why Aragorn ordered a charge after one volley once the orcs broke through the walls in Helms Deep.

Idiot, just keep firing until all the arrows are gone

He should have done some more :book: about military strategy.:wall:

As for Narnia.....

They need a better leader who doen't retreat after lossing 10 fighters.:laugh4:

Well, if you take a good look, the defenders of Helm's Deep first wall had to stop firing arrows because they had to hand-to-hand combat the orcs that were climbing up the wall.

(However, the soldiers on the inner wall keep firing arrows until the last gate was breached:2thumbsup: )

[Mouzafphaerre]

I've always thought that movies and books were greatly differing mediums and approaches to story telling. I've never been a big fan of people panning movies for being unfaithful to the book. I think you should judge movies on their own merits and not their exact accuracy to the books. A painting can tell a story and elicit an emotional response but you can't retell a whole narrative through one picture. Likewise, the visual impact of the movie is elicits much more of an emotional climax than words and literary devices can. Its one thing to read Shakespeare, its a whole other thing to see the words spoken and performed. You infer and imply so much more with sound and images than you can in the written word in which you're limitted to hinting through connotation and straight forward statements.

IF the movie were like the books, the council of Elrond would be the whole freaking movie and so would be the weeks of wandering through the woods.

...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods...ORCS!!!!...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods... Cave Troll!:2thumbsup:
.
Not something I'm proud of but probably I've seen more movies in my life than I've read books. In this particular case I had no freaking idea about Tolkien or his books before seeing the movies. Even then, it took years for me to wonder what the hell was going on (actually I was prompted by meeting two different Mithrandirs in two different forums :inquisitive:) and linger around Wikipedia etc. to find out. When I had finally read the books, I could no longer stand the films.

I'm not mad about them because of shortening or deviating from the story; but for raping the characters, dramatic tensions and themes and replacing them with third rate Hollywood crap.

Even without any comparison to the material they're allegedly based on, the films are shiny b-movies at best. They have little if any rewatchability value. I can take Terminator II, First Blood, Kubrick's Spartacus, Alexander, Cutthroat Island etc. several times but I just can't stand the LotR package anymore.

At any rate, YMMV. :medievalcheers:
.

[LordofUmbar]

Well, if you take a good look, the defenders of Helm's Deep first wall had to stop firing arrows because they had to hand-to-hand combat the orcs that were climbing up the wall.

(However, the soldiers on the inner wall keep firing arrows until the last gate was breached:2thumbsup: )

I was refering to the moment after the orcs blow up part of the wall (and Gimili makes a near suicidel jump). The Orcs are streaming in throught the breach and, instead of firing many volleys into the horde, Aragorn orders a charge into pikes.:laugh4:

If he was really thinking, he could have held the breach so that no uruks got into the fortress at all.:idea2:

[Cadwalader]

Enemy at the Gates really isn't any more accurate than Braveheart. Watching it, I just wondered if it really would cost that much to get a history advisor.

[Hooahguy]

Well if anyone can prove that 1 scottish soldier is the equal to 1000 english soldiers then you may just be correct

It's probably just me, but it's hard for me to watch Braveheart and The Patriot, both Gibson films that only tell us about how ugly, stupid and weak the English are.

I simply can't watch my fellow beloved redcoats be portrayed in this manner, It hurts my English soul.

Anyone else irritated by how invincible the "good guys" always are in these films, I love war films where the characters bleed as easily as their foes:2thumbsup: .


Okay I know "English" and "British" aren't the same, but for simplicities sake don't bring it up

:2cents:

agree with you 100% buddy. in the pirate of the caribbean movies (or at least the last 2) he brits are shown as evil greedy folks..... it anoys me, even tho im not british.

[O'ETAIPOS]

I've always thought that movies and books were greatly differing mediums and approaches to story telling. I've never been a big fan of people panning movies for being unfaithful to the book. I think you should judge movies on their own merits and not their exact accuracy to the books. A painting can tell a story and elicit an emotional response but you can't retell a whole narrative through one picture. Likewise, the visual impact of the movie is elicits much more of an emotional climax than words and literary devices can. Its one thing to read Shakespeare, its a whole other thing to see the words spoken and performed. You infer and imply so much more with sound and images than you can in the written word in which you're limitted to hinting through connotation and straight forward statements.

IF the movie were like the books, the council of Elrond would be the whole freaking movie and so would be the weeks of wandering through the woods.

...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods...ORCS!!!!...Wandering through the woods...Wandering through the woods... Cave Troll!:2thumbsup:


this is not the problem. I have no problem in cutting whole chapters. I, just like Mouzafphaerre, can't stand destruction of characters. and some of the best scenes.

Like Faramir - the guy who in the book is the only human except Aragorn who was able to resist the power of the Ring. He said sth like "Even if I found it on the road lying there, I wouldn't take it."

Or the scene at the gate of Minas Tirith when Grond (?) finaly brakes through and Gandalf (alone!) is looking in the "face" of the Lord of Nazguls, both preparing for the hardest fight in the life. And then the clouds open and Horns of Rohan could be heard in the distance...

[Maeran]

agree with you 100% buddy. in the pirate of the caribbean movies (or at least the last 2) he brits are shown as evil greedy folks..... it anoys me, even tho im not british.

Most Brits in the Caribbean by choice at that time (slave owners, and naval officers mainly) would have been pretty greedy. They are, after all, out to make their fortunes. So are the pirates, many of whom are British.

Of course, there's the press-ganged sailors. But no-one bothered what they thought anyway. Besides, it is a film based on a Disneyland fairground attraction. How much research do you think they did?

(Piracy post-script there was a French pirate in the Caribbean with my family name. Which is odd because the name is a Welsh one. I doubt he is related though.)

As for the LotR circular formation at the end; in terms of low losses against good results, it is the most successful tactic Aragorn ever employs.

[Menander of India]

Really, has anyone of you here considered that Aragorn is in his 80s in the book, Frodo around 40 and such other 'minor' things? :yes:

Actually, it was this summer I realized the correct ages of the characters... Years after I've red the books for the first time!

[Moosemanmoo]

agree with you 100% buddy. in the pirate of the caribbean movies (or at least the last 2) he brits are shown as evil greedy folks..... it anoys me, even tho im not british.

EXACTLY!!!:2thumbsup:


Though to be fair on pirates I think all of the characters are meant to be British, not sure about Depps character who doesn't have an obvious accent

Although the scene in the first film where the soldiers are getting massacred by those immortal skeletal pirates is kinda unfair:wall: Though thats probably the whole point:laugh4:

havnt seen the 2nd but the 3rd makes me sick:soapbox:




I'm getting annoyed with Hollywood constantly portraying the British Empire as a bunch of evil posh english oldies. I'm half English, quarter welsh and quarter scottish, whens Hollywood going to realise the difference between British and English?

:viking: :hmg: :soapbox: :smg: :viking:

Rant over

[Beefy187]

Well they did drug the Chinese just to protect their tea time tradition and they did screw up few things in India.. But Brits should earn more respect just for their sense of humour.

Im guessing im the only one who watches the monty python holy grail screaming "use siege tower!!" "Dont run you fools!!" :laugh4:

[Sakkura]

Im guessing im the only one who watches the monty python holy grail screaming "use siege tower!!" "Dont run you fools!!" :laugh4:
Bah!

I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! :laugh4:

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I'm getting annoyed with Hollywood constantly portraying the British Empire as a bunch of evil posh english oldies. I'm half English, quarter welsh and quarter scottish, whens Hollywood going to realise the difference between British and English?
When they realise the difference between Bavaria and Germany. That means never.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

Really, has anyone of you here considered that Aragorn is in his 80s in the book, Frodo around 40 and such other 'minor' things? :yes:

Actually, it was this summer I realized the correct ages of the characters... Years after I've red the books for the first time!
Frodo was 50 but looking 33 due to the ring's power.
Hobbit lifespan was slightly larger than big people's; like 100s against our 70s. A Hobbit would come of age at the age of 33, which, according to some geeks, is equivalent to the Victorian English 21 years. So, an apparently 33 yo frodo would look like a big man in his twenties. Some dismiss this theory as the coming of age being completely a customary issue without biological connotations, and that the lifespan of Hobbits was simply longer, without any equations to big people's ages. At any rate, Frodo should look nowhere near as the girlie boy crybaby Elijah Wood in the b-movies. :book2: Aragorn was -IIRC- 93. However, being of the blessed N&#250;menorean race, that wouldn't mean much. They were gifted with centuries of lifespan, though decreasing with every coming generation due to the mingling with lesser races, and the right to die at their own will when they grew weary of the Middle-earth. He married a 2000+ yo Elf maiden pictured as the most beautiful thing on the world, after all. :shrug:
.

[Cyclops]

I must say I do look at battle scenes in a different light thanks to RTW and now EB.

I appreciate what Oliver Stone was trying to show in Alexander: phalanx in line, tricky move to the flank using combined arms, assault the enemy commander. Quite EB actually.

I enjoyed the very first charge in 300. I known it was a load of stylised homoerotic rubbish, but to see the push of pike done well was satisfying (although I agree with the "overhand" school). Then Leonidas pulls out his sword and I'm thinking "backspace, backspace, don't go to secondary weapon!":embarassed:

I had a similar reaction to the OP with Narnia. "Centaurs to the flank! Mass the giants in the rear, they're vulnerable to akonstitai...d'oh!"

Usually the historic accuracy is last proirity for a movie maker. The director is focussed on his storyline, not some long dead historians. The producer is worried about the budget, the art director think ptyrges are soooo last year, the cinematographer is worried about the glare on the breastplate and the star doesn't look good in red, can we maybe use teal?

In the case of Braveheart/Patriot, you also have to figure that the guy making the movie is a completely insane Laroche style Pom-hating anti-semite. I mean if he hates the English so much, why doen't he just watch the cricket?:whip: After the last Ashes series I feel so sorry for them I'm prepared to forgive them everything.

[wumpus]

OK. Let's put things in their proper light (and there are plenty of "proper lights" in the world). A moviemaker makes a war movie or a movie with war in it. Maybe the production can afford a so-called military adviser, sometimes they can't, and sometimes the wise guys who make the movie think that one (or two) isn't necessary--many people have seen war in the movies anyway, and they all look the same anyway. Then, if there is any military adviser in the movie, we don't know what's important to him: maybe he wants uniforms and/or armor flawlessly correct, maybe he wants the actor to hold the saber in the proper way, or makes his soldiers march the correct way, etc. And maybe the military advisor used to be a courageous Ranger or Green Beret with a hundred thousand parachute jumps to his name, or has set ten dozen bombs to kill some Viet Congs or Muslim rebels or IRA terrorists, etc., and he appears impressively qualified as a super-soldier. But, sadly, he may not be that good in history, or (worse) in combat tactics of the period portrayed in the movie. True, strategy doesn't change much through the ages of warfare (e.g., Napoleon used many times the strategy that Alexander copied from somebody more ancient), but tactics do change--you don't use exactly the same routine with your Roman triarii legionaries as the Spartan hoplites as the Swiss pikemen of Gustavus Adolphus' time. And if the military adviser had been a "useful" one in, let's say, Mel Gibson's Braveheart, would he still be the correct adviser in Gibson's The Patriot? Does he have the correct historical sense? correct maneuvers? costumes? weapons? temperament/ethnic prejudices/familial or tribal influences? Think about it--that's why the protagonists of one movie stupidly charges the enemy's line of pikes while the arrows haven't yet been exhausted, or something like that. That is, if there's any military adviser at all! Poor movie makers. Poor us who have to suffer watching the fruits of their stupidity.
Hawooh.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

agree with you 100% buddy. in the pirate of the caribbean movies (or at least the last 2) he brits are shown as evil greedy folks..... it anoys me, even tho im not british.




I'm getting annoyed with Hollywood constantly portraying the British Empire as a bunch of evil posh english oldies. I'm half English, quarter welsh and quarter scottish, whens Hollywood going to realise the difference between British and English?

:viking: :hmg: :soapbox: :smg: :viking:

Rant over

To be honest I find movies like The Patriot and Braveheart absolutely hilarious. I'm completely English and according to my aussie friends the most overly patriotic 'pom' that they know.

Its like, come on, you're not serious, theres no way that the English can be portrayed like this it must be a parody! :laugh4:

Not really but the point is that we did own a quarter of the world at one point, we have to expect that we are thought of as the evil empire of that time. The fact that we were everyones hero in the Napoleonic wars is beside the point.

Anyway on topic, you can't expect Hollywood directors (like Micheal Bay and his seven helicopters, if anyones australian) can be expected to make things realistic. Most people don't want to see realism, they want to be entertained by an unkillable jock, (or occasionally a nice sensitive type, lol).

[Watchman]

Superman *is* around the most boring superhero around, though, when it comes to that. :clown:

[Good Ship Chuckle]

In war scenes in movies, I do often have the urge to select the men like units with my invisible mouse. It's times like those that I realize I've been playing RTW too long. lol

[Moosemanmoo]

In war scenes in movies, I do often have the urge to select the men like units with my invisible mouse. It's times like those that I realize I've been playing RTW too long. lol

You sire are a madman!:laugh4:

[Gebeleisis]

yea i have the feeling that i have to move one army if they loose or get flanked and start yelling in my head "dont rout you idiots" and stuff like that
or even: "lol that is a weird tactic,he should've moved his cav to the right":laugh4:

[General Appo]

Well I try to enjoy war movies for what they are, but sometimes I just can&#180;t help myself. Though I usually try to dstance myself from other people before lashing out at the stupid commanders or unrealistical battles. Most people doesn&#180;t understand the importancy of not using a slightly wrong armor for the roman legionaries. Stupid normal people.

[Spotted Pig]

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

I second!
A must for every dictator!

What's really annoying is battles where they only fire one or two volleys of arrows before the infantry charge. But I guess they don't want to waste every arrow they have in fear of not having any at all the next battle. But in major battles where it's a win or loose scenario I can't see why they wouldn't use all their arrows, I'd rather use them all in order to crush the enemy and have none (or just a few) for a later, minor battle.

And one ending I hated from the start is the one in 300. Sure, it's the only way for Xerxes to beat them but I mean, the SPORTSMANSHIP! Bah!

[Good Ship Chuckle]

You sire are a madman!:laugh4:

I'm not mad! It's the rest of the world that's mad. I'm the only normal one.:tongue3:

[The Wandering Scholar]

Narnia Narnia Narnia, what were they thinking when making them battle scenes??

[Maeran]

And one ending I hated from the start is the one in 300. Sure, it's the only way for Xerxes to beat them but I mean, the SPORTSMANSHIP! Bah!

Absolutely!

Xerxes should have offered to switch ends so that the Spartans could have a go attacking.:beam:

[J.Alco]

Well, as many people here have been complaining (or commenting) about how the Brits are represented in (hollywood) film, I might as well contribute to how the Spanish are represented in historical film in laughable stereotypes most of the time:

Spaniards in hollywood epics have, 90% of the time: Black hair, sharp faces, men have beards, women often have long hair, and in most cases we're blustering, arrogant, war-mongering religious fanatics (just look at Elizabeth: The Golden Age).

One movie, though, that was a refreshing change from that was Goya's Ghosts. Unfortunately, the movie wasn't great.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't really care how we're represented in movies, and in Elizabeth, I actually got a kick out of seeing the most famous Spanish monarch (Phillip II) being turned into a creepy villain :laugh4:
The film sadly neglected to mention that the reason he was invading England was because he'd been married to Bloody Mary I and was, according to himself, asserting his right (i.e that island belonged to my late wife, so now it belongs to me).

Plus, the movie forgot to mention that Phillip II wasn't spanish at all, but was actually German/Portugese (just look up his lineage on Wikipeida) :laugh4:

[V.T. Marvin]

Yesterday a funny realization occured as we were watching Alexander for the fist time and were discussing the battle scene of Gaugamela:
Me - "Hmmm, nice..."
Kari - "Hmmm, I miss the unit banners..."

And when Alex started his pre-battle speech:
Alex - "Today..."
Me+Kari unisono - "...is a good day to die! But better still..."
(you know the rest...:beam: )

We are such nerds...:no: :laugh4:

[Mouzafphaerre]

Yesterday a funny realization occured as we were watching Alexander for the fist time and were discussing the battle scene of Gaugamela:
Me - "Hmmm, nice..."
Kari - "Hmmm, I miss the unit banners..."

And when Alex started his pre-battle speech:
Alex - "Today..."
Me+Kari unisono - "...is a good day to die! But better still..."
(you know the rest...:beam: )

We are such nerds...:no: :laugh4:
.
:2thumbsup:
.

[cmacq]

The film sadly neglected to mention that the reason he was invading England was because he'd been married to Bloody Mary I and was, according to himself, asserting his right (i.e that island belonged to my late wife, so now it belongs to me).


Right...

God breathed, and the enemy was scattered.

[Moosemanmoo]

And when Alex started his pre-battle speech:
Alex - "Today..."
Me+Kari unisono - "...is a good day to die! But better still..."
(you know the rest...:beam: )



This reminds me of a period in my Mak campaigns where I suddenly thought

How bored must these veterans be after hearing 3 generations of Argeades saying the same thing?

[machinor]

I remember when I was watching The Two Towers for the first time, I was just telling my mate: "Jeez, whoever designed that castle at Helm's Deep should be crucified for it." I mean, this thing's supposed to be unconquerable, yet it has a quite massive stone bridge up to the main gate and a simple wooden door is all that is supposed to keep enemies out. Come oooooon! Ever heard of things like drawbridges or portcullis?! Those are basic acessories to any medieval castle.

Btw, regarding representation of Renaissance age Spain I recommend the movie "Alatriste" with Viggo Mortensen. The plot is a bit hard to follow sometimes but I find the depiction quite good and there are some cool swordfights and battles. Especially the last battle against the French (the first time I ever saw a quite accurate depiction of Spanish Tercio Infantry in a movie).


EDIT:

This reminds me of a period in my Mak campaigns where I suddenly thought

How bored must these veterans be after hearing 3 generations of Argeades saying the same thing?
LOL! ~D

[delablake]

keep in mind that he DOES toss a guy out of a window for being overly flattering. Oh, and being gay too)[/QUOTE]

he throws him out because this homo (the King's son's lover) dared addressing the King without being asked for his opinion.

A great war movie I liked was Saving Private Ryan. The battle scenes in that devastated French village were quite cool and accurate. And BLOODY. Another extremely gruesome movie is the Russian "Come and See", about SS-Einsatzgruppen in Belarus fighting against the local guerrilla, i.e. burning peasants in their churches. Stalingrad was quite cool too, and I really liked Enemy at the gates.

Excellent war movies: Gods and Generals, Gettysburg, and Glory, all covering the American Civil War, though the musical score in all three movies makes me wanna puke.

Alexander and Hannibal were nice, Gladiator and Troy were crap.

Then there are all these 60ies movies in which the poor old Brits won WWII over and over again, against dumb Nazis.

Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima are good.

Nice: Zulu and Zulu Dawn, if you like semi-realistic movies about the Limeys kicking some poor African fellas/ the Limeys getting kicked by some poor African fellas.
:laugh4: