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