Funny realization occured... my PC broke:wall: and my bro's PC can't handle EB :wall:
Printable View
Funny realization occured... my PC broke:wall: and my bro's PC can't handle EB :wall:
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
Lol. They had such a nice little civilized war, but suddenly those Germans came along and suddenly people got killed...~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reno Melitensis
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.
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.
.
:laugh4:
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniMe
Oh no you didn't!:laugh4:
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.
They beat enough Romans to have a tons of their stuff. I think they defeated like 3 legions or something like that.
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:
Spartacus is on TV right now! I've never seen it before, but I'm not expecting much.
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Danest
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.
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
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...atue-caged.jpg
.
Sophie Marceau was wasted in that crappy film. :no:
He's epitheted "illiterate" by many fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diadoch
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordofUmbar
(However, the soldiers on the inner wall keep firing arrows until the last gate was breached:2thumbsup: )
.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
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:
.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Senatus Populusque Romanus
If he was really thinking, he could have held the breach so that no uruks got into the fortress at all.:idea2:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
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.
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!
EXACTLY!!!:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
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
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:
Bah!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefy187
I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! :laugh4:
When they realise the difference between Bavaria and Germany. That means never.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo
.
Frodo was 50 but looking 33 due to the ring's power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Menander of India
Aragorn was -IIRC- 93. However, being of the blessed Númenorean 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:
.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo
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).
Superman *is* around the most boring superhero around, though, when it comes to that. :clown:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Ship Chuckle
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:
Well I try to enjoy war movies for what they are, but sometimes I just can´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´t understand the importancy of not using a slightly wrong armor for the roman legionaries. Stupid normal people.
I second!Quote:
Originally Posted by gosam
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!
I'm not mad! It's the rest of the world that's mad. I'm the only normal one.:tongue3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo
Narnia Narnia Narnia, what were they thinking when making them battle scenes??
Absolutely!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spotted Pig
Xerxes should have offered to switch ends so that the Spartans could have a go attacking.:beam:
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).
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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: )
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
.Quote:
Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin
:2thumbsup:
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Alco
Right...
God breathed, and the enemy was scattered.
This reminds me of a period in my Mak campaigns where I suddenly thoughtQuote:
Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin
How bored must these veterans be after hearing 3 generations of Argeades saying the same thing?
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:
LOL! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Moosemanmoo
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: