GoT has a guy stabbing through plate, mail, and gambeson all the way through the torso. So two layers of plate, two layers of mail, and two layers of gambeson, plus the torso itself. These shows need to have a historian, and for the choreography there needs to be a HEMA instructor.
As a former weapon specialized stuntman, I would like to say there are a few reasons this commonly happens 1) Safety: You want the actor to perform the stunts, but he/she is not skilled enough. Hitting the armor is safe and there will be only a few people complaining, so why not. 2) Speed: The action has to be fast, but not really violent. I can write a choreography of one hero cutting through a dozen armored opponents, but it will be really bloody and I would need a lot of time to train the actor to actually do it. Cutting the chest or belly is the fastest and least bloody way of doing such a scene 3) Money: Most commonly, the budget cuts didn't allow more complex choreography to be in the scene. We were a rather cheap crew to film with, yet as far as I know, it can cost about 50 000 USD per day of training. With the payment like that for every day of choreography preparation, you don't wanna have too complex scenes. (PS: Feel free to ask me anything about stunts)
@@Tyrhor How were stunts filmed? Are they seperated from the normal movie stuff, like on special days, or do they directly follow the scene before, to avoid continuety mistakes? I want to become a director, and learn much stuff. Not that easy without the right connections, so I ask anyone everything, I could need to know, to form a project and coordinate a team.
Yeah Henry V with Kenneth Branagh no helmet at all, as a royal noggin needs no protection.........too much BS I don´t watch reguardless of the explainations. Best example "The Last Kingdom" books great entertainment, the film puke! Lindey Beige took that series nicely apart. Not financing filmmakers rubbish.
To properly hunt Orcs, you need a machine gun. The reason is that they are too fast, too strong, so you need a high rate of fire - definitely no hunting rifles. OR you need even more phantasy - then you use a sword bigger than a human. I consulted with Professor Orc and he told me that their worst fear is to be rendered immobile by laughter, they really cannot control their views of the ridicule. And ridicule is abounding in all "medieval" enactments in movies and comics. Look at what happened to the Dragon when he looked at puny George 😉
One further reason for the industry love for the back scabbards is - I'd imagine - that it allows you to show the weapon right alongside that expensive face. You get the actor AND the character specific hilt design neatly right there in a close-up.
My view is that I can deal with it being historically inaccurate but not historically implausible. They can have armour that's a couple of centuries out of date and the wrong colours but it should behave like armour and be functional in the setting.
The thing that bothers me most in when they get things wrong by overcomplicating things. In Vikings, for instance, saxon or frank soldiers are given some ridiculous armour that never existed in orther to make them look more uniformed than the vikings... Yeah, I undertans, making lots of long chainmail gambesons (the most acuratte type of armour for carolingian era soldiers) would be pretty expensive... BUT gambesons made of cloth would be much cheaper and historically accurate! Most foot soldiers who could not afford mail (or whoose lieges could not afford to equip them anyway) still would wear cloth gambesons. With cloth gambesons, helmets and shields you can equip a large group of soldiers and make them look a real medieval army. Add some officers or knigths with full mail armour, some mail coifs (you can buy them already made ones for just 40€ so you dont have your costume department saturated making mail) and you will get an uniformed regular army in no time... Also, when you need your soldiers to be gutted by vikings; it's much more realistic if they die easilly wearing ligth armour than if they are killed wearing full mail...or worse, full plate But no. They prefer to made up wacky armours that did not exist nor even look to work propperlly (I'm thinking thoose englishmen in Braveheart; with random pieces of square metal bits just stiched into their sleeves and trousers)
So...no First Knight? I'm not the sort to actually ruin my filmgoing by trying to find all the historical inaccuracies, but I _hated_ the stylized armor in that flick. It looked like they were wearing the medieval equivalent of bowling shirts.
@@purpledave3271 yeah it's a shame cos it's an extremely good film in other ways. At least in that one the armour actually does something some of the time... doesn't just get chopped through like paper.
"With respect to the requirements of art, a probable impossibility is to be preferred to a thing improbable and yet possible." -Aristotle, Poetics Impossible: a 12th century soldier wearing armor that wasn't seen before the 14th century Improbable: a soldier weighing himself down with hundreds of pounds of plate mail that somehow still gets torn to shreds like it's tissue paper - they'd *probably* just go for maneuverability with the type of cloth gambesons Dhorn mentions, if their opponents' swords were so sharp (/magic)
I loved how Peter Jackson got around the wonderful LOTR artwork copyrights of Alan Lee and John Howe by employing them as art directors on the films. Very clever. We've all marveled at the beautiful pictures in many editions of the books over the years done by those two men, how fantastic that the films were able to recreate so many of those iconic scenes. With the added bonus of him being able to ask them "can you draw suck and such?", and then taking that drawing to the set department and saying "can you make it look like this?" Luckily both Alan and John were thrilled to be involved. That's how it should always be done, but sadly the opportunity to do so arises very rarely. Of course LOTR is a fictional work, not an actual historical recreation, but I'm sure you understand my meaning. Great video Tod. I could listen to you all day.
Technically, you could hire the artist who owned the copyright to the descriptions and they would not have to provide you with the copyright they hold... itd need to be specified that they would use the copyright you want... so in effect, you're still buying the copyright..
On the cast audio commentary of Fellowship, I remember the Hobbits talking about turning up at the Rivendell set and seeing Alan Lee adding finishing touches onto things. He wasn't just an art director, he actually helped WETA design and decorate many of the sets.
It's sort of sad that we've basically imagined a history without colour, so that every medieval peasant has to wear dirty beige, every castle has to be gray, togas are white and so on.
@@alextusv That very much depends on the colour. Red wasn't terribly expensive, nor was yellow. You might spot the difference between a cheap red and an expensive one, but "colour" by itself wasn't expensive, only the ones that were difficult to make dyes and paints of. That's why purple was such a big deal. It's not like nature itself defaults to dirty beige, and whitewash for the houses was dirt cheap.
@@dennispetrov9628 that was great. If someone were to take that idea with a higher budget and better choreography, it would be amazing. Like something out of the videogame, 'Kingdom Come: Deliverance'
My personal opinion... Anduril, Glamdring, and Aragorn's "Ranger Sword" from Peter Jackson's LOTR were three of the most perfect, beautiful, realistic, and ideal movie swords ever made.
Just to say as a person very familiar with the commercial industry, there's something Tod can't mention: it's not unusual to have complete idiots in decision-making capacities. Most of them are called 'producers.' They will sometimes demand absurd things in the Dunning-Kruger belief that they know better what punters will think or like. So yes, he's totally correct and illuminating about the many practical factors. But they're not always grown-ups. And on the note about not being documentaries. Very true. But that can also be a cop-out when you realise that the masses Tod speaks about often derive their knowledge of history from these films and not from any other sources. Filmmakers have more responsibility than they like to tell themselves. And it's frequently only the opinion of the directors and producers that the masses will need these changes in order to enjoy the film as entertainment - and these heavily altered films sometimes bombing, and very accurate ones sometimes raking in millions will never convince them otherwise. They're not as rational as they pretend to be.
And that, I bet, is a major reason for silly and stupid errors, like giving all the British cavalry red trousers (rather than only the 11th Hussars) in the film Charge of The Light Brigade.
I have to disagree with your second point that films have a responsibility for the mass's knowledge of medieval history. You are absolutely right many people develop their pool of "knowledge" from said films, but that is their fault. Unless the movie claims to be educational, they bare no responsibility for the stupid decision of a person to take what they see as immediate truth.
I've worked on some horrific productions where you got (too many) producers putting their oar in purely for the sake of being seen to be "contributing".
People are stupid. A person /can/ be smart, insightful and curious about truth, but people, en masse, are tribal, entrenched in their own ignorance, and stupid.
I feel your pain Sir!!! I'm a locksmith who occasionally gets work making or modifying prop locks and other lock related devices for movies and TV shows filmed locally... My first one went like this... Them... "OK, so it's a 17th century pirate ship and we need you to make this key (purchased in bulk from some home decor store) work this thingie"..... " Me "OK, well that's not period accurate, see ships back then would have had toggles or slide bolts, and usually not locks as locks were both expensive and prone to rust back then... ALSO even if it IS a lock... this key is wrong.... it's not even really a key, it's way too big.... see it should be a...." "We're making a kids movie... Not a documentary... We just need it to look good and pop on screen, can you do it or not?"... Me "YES SIR!!!! I can make that work!!!" Then they tell you last minute that they need 6 more IDENTICAL copies within 24 hours... (now I plan for this, but back then it was a shock)
Honestly the response you got is exactly what I think when someone starts nitpicking those things. Did the movie say it was historycally correct in every little aspect? No? Well then shup up and watch the movie.
@@THEPELADOMASTER Oh I totally get it NOW... But for someone who also repairs and restores ACTUAL antique locks, as well as just being a locksmith, as we tend to be compulsively detail orientated (watching a scene in a movie involving lock picking, with a locksmith, is like watching a horror film with a trauma medic, something glaringly wrong just takes us completely out of the scene...)... It was a totally different mindset then what I was used to.
@@CrownRock1 you can actually jiggle a paperclip, but only if it's shaped right(like an actual picking rake), and even then not every lock can be raked open. edit: and you still need to tension the lock somehow
You pointed out a lot of valid reasons why movies props often can't be historically accurate, most of the reasons would have never occurred to me. Thanks for making me a tad bit smarter.
@@TF_Tony its true tho. It was something along the lines of scrotum armor to show their toxic masculinity or some shit. Fact is the armor looks retardet but the show itself was pretty cheesy and b movie like anyway....
@@allanredhill8682 Citation needed. Although that concept is pretty hilarious and completely justified, if true, unfortunately, I couldn't find any sources to back up that claim other than people spreading the rumor without any original sources.
@@allanredhill8682 Doubt. I don't think it was meant to actually resemble a scrotum btw, it's probably incidental that people took it that way. My first thought was that it was a cost saving measure for background characters, but that didn't turn out to be the case. Either way they'll probably use different armor for season 2. Don't read into it too much mate.
still waiting for that Corinthian Column blockbuster! Steve Buscemi as the master stonemason and Kate McKinnon as his muse, and the Rock as the columns of course. Cinema Gold!
Great video sir. As a photographer who shot a lot of Cosplay and reenactors a varies timeframes I can certainly say that I've had to instruct people to pull things or turn ways that are completely wrong but look right from the camera side. In the end it's all about telling the story
Counterpoint to full face helmets: A Knight's Tale. The actors wear armor obscuring their face during the majority of fights, I suspect it primarily worked because the plot revolves around tournament fights of short duration with plenty of opportunity to show faces during interludes, and doing so let stunt doubles more easily take over the roles of an actors. It's a fantastic comedy, completely historically inaccurate and all the better for it.
@@willis32 Yes, that's the "and doing so let stunt doubles more easily take over the roles of an actors." part =) It never felt jarring though, it was very well done.
Completely agree. Some of the best films have portions where they have the balls to have noone even talk for five or ten minutes, and a combat scene where you're locked into the combat with the main character could be fantastically done. No disrespect to Tod, but I felt like most of his points were like this. I don't want more conservative, mostly mediocre films (imo); I want something that really tries to do it perfectly. Like nail the narrative structure of it, alongside making it gritty, realistic and historically accurate. I've no doubt people can do that if they're just willing to bother and invest in the idea
Lord of the rings managed nice swords and hanging swords by the side! Kinda fun to think a fantasy film is more historical that actual historical films
Christoffer Bergström - I suspect that if riding you probably would hang the longsword somewhere on the horse’s harness anyway... trying to draw it from your side on horseback, you’d probably end up chopping the poor nag’s ears off.
In many ways, yes. However they suffer from the common mistake of armour being useless. I'm glad the main heroes only wore leather jerkins, because all the Gondorians who wore full plate still got killed effortlessly by crude arrows and slashing weapons.
@@Pro_Butcher_Amateur_Human this actually isn't that true. A lot of the time the orcs bash them over the heads and they fall down and arrows generally go through areas that are uncovered. Not always of course but there are many cases where this is true
@@Jhakaro I'm talking about the movies. In the books the Gondorian heavy infantry was very good, but in the films their armour was made of tissue paper. One (in the siege tower scene) gets killed by a slash across the chest that in real life would have just left a scratch on his chestplate.
Some things they do wrong because of safety, because of convenience, for a particular look But some things are wrong because the director/writer/producer said so ... and when they were told it was wrong, and everyone would know it looked out of place (including the masses) and were given a better, still unique looking option they insisted ... these are the ones I notice as it means the filmmaker just didn't care ....
Yeah, the big example of this that comes to mind is the Laurence Olivier Henry V. Where it had the infamous scene of a knight needing a crane to mount a horse. I remember seeing that the historical consultant begged the Olivier not to include it because it's not remotely historical and looks absurd, but he did it anyway.
@@purpledave3271 I you have one, then yes please, go Orc hunting. Just a suggestion, though, not Orcs with their own light-sabers. Be smart about this.
The copyright aspect is interesting, I never thought about that. That sheds light on why some movie, TV, books, comics and games of the same initial story aren't exactly the same.
Copyright is such crap. Artificial monopoly. Anti-competitive garbage. Might as well throw for profit motive out the window... hence why there's only a handful of major media and publishers per each nation. They end up monopolizing content.
@@jmitterii2 : I think (don't know) that he's probably over-playing the degree to which copyright influences weapons choices made my movie makers. The idea of intellectual property is one of the few things that actually puts money in a creative person's pocket. I'd say we need MORE stringent copyright law. What we HAVE is a system where if you're big enough and have enough lawyers, nothing is sacred, and anything you almost had a thought about is YOURS. But if you're some low-budget creative type, they'll steal your stuff and sue YOU!
@@harrymills2770 - I think we can reduce copyright length to 45 years after initial publication, while providing more stringent protection until the copyright lapses. Especially for the smaller scale producers, who might not have a legal team ready to go at a moment's notice.
Also, in the less realism oriented sword fights when the combatants are both really skilled and one loses his weapon he just beats the crap out of the other guy until he gets his weapon back. Why even have a weapon if you are apparently capable of killing an armed opponent with your fists better than with a sword.
@@alkohnest because when you have empty hands you are better able to grapple/wrestle/maneuver by closing the distance if the enemy hasn't already foolishly gotten too close by being over confident. a weapon merely holds an opponent at distance. at some point if an enemy closes the distance beyond what your weapon is capable of functioning at then YOU are at a disadvantage unless you drop your weapon to free up that extra hand... OR pull out a hidden dagger/knife which is able to function in a far smaller space. CQB comes down to who has the better skill/will to want to live but hollywood always wants the hero to prevail so it's a false sense of reality in truth.
"Camera Tests" are pretty much the FINAL arbiter of whether a thing can be used. A weapon, armor, or set piece that causes camera issues [i.e. a tight weave pattern on a gambeson that causes Moiré patterns to appear on the final product] is right out, regardless of how "authentic" the weave was for the character who is supposed to wear it!
I LOSE MY MIND every time I see them do the "NIGHTTIME" scenes in films, but it's clearly daytime but they use a BLUE FILTER on the camera to make it appear it's moonlight. OOOOF!
Is there no way at all to adjust camera settings, use a different lens etc? Or is that a budget question rather then the equipment does not exist question? How the heck does documentaries get away with it when they do it accurately then?
@@HawkJedilord I think the primary problem is cost and often safety. If you want to film in the dark you have a limited time to film, you may have to pay people more, you will still need light but that is more difficult to get right and it might be dangerous for action scenes if the people performing can't see as well. also dark environments may just not give you a good picture in the end so you end up having it not be true night so the audience can see what is going on better.
Kurosawa managed to make great films without making very many of these compromises. Perhaps it was because he valued his culture over the minor inconveniences of his crew and his crew thought it worth the effort to portray things properly. Essentially this is the missing element from western cinema... respect. In this light it's hard to watch any of it regardless of how fun it might seem at first.
Didn't he have a bunch of fights with katanas used to parry each other's blows? And isn't that very inaccurate in that they would shatter if used this way? I'm not an expert on this, but that is what I remember reading somewhere.
Katanas don't shatter under extreme stresses; if anything, they snap. And no, direct parries-which are more actions of necessity than the deflects typically used-won't themselves cause either of two katanas to snap. However rigidly we may think they're held (even in the most firm hands), the way one holds a sword at the hilt has a fair lot of give. On top of that, the sorts of high-carbon steel used in katana blades aren't entirely brittle enough for two swordsmen to clash with blade-breaking force at first collision. A well-prepared blade won't snap.
@@akafuguvids Isn't that accurate? Ideally you won't parry in that way, but if its what you have to do to not get iron in the face... you do it. If they hit like that you'll get a nick or a splinter, and maybe they will snap. It's not an instant snap when two swords touch though, otherwise they'd never have survived the age of shields.
I understand that movies are flexible on what weapons are used, but when they show Japanese soldiers in ww1 with Soviet Ppsh43 from ww2 1943.... that upsets me. When I see a 1400s European knight with a katana.... that upsets me.
@@brianspenst1374 You think that's bad? What about Arnold Schwarzenegger wielding a $@!#'ing minigun off of a mount? Now I know the man is stronger than some oxen, but an 85-86 pound minigun with about 60lbs of ammunition, this isn't even including a power source because miniguns are electrically powered? First of all, it doesn't matter how strong you are, miniguns' weight distribution is ridiculously barrel heavy to compensate recoil, because otherwise firing it for just a moment would send it flying off the mount. Second, you cannot be stronger than the explosions of 2,000-6,000 7.62NATO per minute. Arnie would have lost an arm after the gun launched itself out of his hands. Lastly, How TF was he so accurate? The dude was sniping people with a heavy machine gun meant for covering fire and forcing enemies to retreat, hide, or get turned into swiss cheese. It wasn't meant to be a weapon to hit someone over the horizon with. I will take a 15 shot revolver over a dude wielding a minigun on foot ANY DAY. At least in film, you could say he reloaded the revolver when the camera was focused on other entities. I mean speed loaders were a thing back then.
I’m a set carpenter and we do a ton of stuff that doesn’t make sense in reality. That’s why it’s important to have conversations with various departments to understand why things are. There is usually a reason. (Mostly visual, but not always). A lot of the times you need to over emphasize things so that normal viewers notice it. Good video, I really enjoyed it. I will say that watching videos to explain the differences between movies and reality is enlightening for me, it’s just the attitude one takes making the video needs to be an effort enlighten as opposed to gotcha.
I'm sure all of those points are valid, but there is also the matter of immersion. Inconsistencies tend to take you out of the moment. A perfectly historically accurate movie may not be desirable for most people, but historical accuracy is a continuum, and moving more towards accuracy is certainly possible. I would also differentiate between functional differences and purely aesthetic ones. Black fletchings or unhistorical family crests still work the same way. Rectangular Shields and back scabbards do not. But in the end I really think there is room for both the more realistic and the more fantastical historical movies. We have both in SciFi too, like for example Star Wars vs The Martian. You could make very similar points about the more realistic end of the SciFi genre, but there are still lots of people who like (or even prefer) that.
"Inconsistencies tend to take you out of the moment." This seems like an over-generalization. Wasn't Tod clear that for 99% of the people who watch movies, it doesn't matter? Not that I specifically disagree with you; _Aliens_ drives me crazy to this day, but for most people, rectangular shield are just shields. The functional differences that irk you are somewhere between completely unknown and random trivia to most moviegoers.
@@AaronMcLin That can certainly be the case. But just to offer an example of particularly bad design: in the last Hobbit movie (ok, not exactly a historical story, but even so...) the dwarves' armour is so horrendously impractical that the actors had to take it off in order to do the fight scenes. To someone who never thought about armour design, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. They see a bunch of warriors in armour, and then they see these warriors taking off their armour before going to battle.
Your point reminds me of the "I swear by these swans" scene in Outlaw/King which had basically everyone (even the "experts") googling what the hell they just watched.
It's true, @@CosmicDuck494, that sometimes movies do a poor job of explaining character actions to the audience. It seems to me that if the armor doesn't work for the _actors_ then it would have been redesigned; so if we're seeing the warriors taking off their armor before going into battle, then the audience is meant to understand that the armor doesn't work for the _characters_ on-screen. The movie may have done a poor job of conveying that to the audience, but no-one's perfect.
As a re enactor one of my pet hates was ' ah but they didn't do that in (insert movie of choice)' . We spent so much time trying to teach people and that was what you got back 80% of the time, There were people who'd spent hundreds of pounds getting the right fittings and ornaments on their kit and get 'Saxon shields are square!'. On the point about the scabbard decoration, no most audience members won't be going ' oh flowers, I wonder what that means?' to use GOT as an example , there are people arguing ' Dany went mad because of Sansa/ Jon/Tyrion, that's why she burnt KL.' never mind the fact she's been lighting people up since she got the dragons . Seriously , they really aren't noticing a scabbard design, well apart from the re enactors/ history buffs who will move it frame by frame to see said design and call it out for being ten years to early or in the wrong country.
@@wulfheywood1321 Yes! This is a big point I think. The 'Average movie goer' treats what they see in the movie as historical fact. It may just be an inherent bias in humans to believe everything we see, but in any case that's where people get to. So actually, on the contrary, average people DO want to be informed of historically accurate things... and be entertained at the same time!
I would also think these were not just excuses if bloody they were ubiquitous. They are not, so they are just excuses. For example, backscabbards are mentioned. BUT we often see side scabbards in productions. So the talk about backscabbards being about solving the "issue" of side scabbards becomes just a bloody excuse for the poor ability of those involved in the production.
Just have to say that i'm just as equally awestruck every time i see that 1 sec intro of yours. There are just so many things condensed down to the essentials. Shape, colour, speed, work, tools, makeing and all focused down and superimposed on your 4 quarters logotype. Its like a koan in video form. Just great work. Whoever did it... its genius.
I wish we lived in a world where you could go to the movies with your mates and watch 1.5 hours of Corinthian pillars in Ancient Greece. Actually, I just wish we lived in a world where you could go to the movies with your mates at all :(
At least you ppl still have drive-ins. My country has zero such cinemas. So chances of going to a new movie would be like earliest next year. Might as well gather at the home of the guy with the best sound systems and biggest screen.
First Knight was such crap on other levels that I don't even remember the armor :-) It's amazing how bad a movie can be despite a whole host of awesome actors.
That's a bad habit film picked up from theatre. Theatre costumes need to look good and convincing from 20 or 30 feet away. From that distance, painted string does look like mail.
I remember myself and the other fight guy being asked to use epees for fighting a British Civil War sequence. We refused because it was for a Son e Lumiere, which is played out mostly in the dark. You couldn’t see where the tips of the swords were. It would only have taken one of us to be slightly out of step for the scene to get very real, very quickly. In the end we used very plain, and blunt, swords which sounded great when bashed together, could be easily filed back to take the burrs out and wouldn’t have costed much to replace if they became unusable. Would the other swords have looked more authentic? Perhaps. But our choice was safety over appearance and nobody in the audiences even noticed.
I love that this very knowledgeable man, who actually makes accurate reproductions.. somewhat involved in the movie making process...just told off every pedantic, know it all, in a language they'll all understand.
I watched it all, and I still feel pretty pedantic. I buy the part about points on swords. But the rest of it... To me, it's all about the "feel" that the movie is going for. If it's a "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" style flick, then by all means let the swords "schwiiiinnngg" and have armor be worthless and let people somersault and dance around with their backs to the enemy and observe all the other tropes established for that genre. But if the movie tries tell me with a straight face that it represents a period, then I expect to be taken into that world. Surprise me. Wow me. Don't be afraid to educate me. Maybe I will even see something I haven't seen before. If some things don't look "cool" to modern sensibilities, but are clearly treated as such in 'verse, wouldn't that just be a way to further tell us that we're not in Kansas anymore? Cinematographers suddenly don't wanna take any excuse to play around with colors on film now? How did that happen? Surely the problem of differentiating the two sides was the same for the actual fighters back in the day (and a damn site more important)? What solutions did _they_ have to that problem? And what do I need to care if actors are expensive? Bits of ornaments and heraldry on people's gear wasn't uncommon at all, so why would a proper helmet automatically mean we can't tell A from B? How much of this move is going to be spent on the actual cavalry charge anyway? Aren't limits supposed to be overcome in interesting ways, not just ignored? (and does it make me a bad person if I didn't even notice that the color difference on fletching was supposed to be something systematic?) Why do the heroes need "swords with built in extra oomph" if they wouldn't have had that for the fighting style their gear is otherwise supposed to portray? Aren't limits supposed to be overcome in interesting ways, not just ignored? If scabbards created so many problems when running around, how was that dealt with by the actual people carrying them? If equipment is found to be so impractical to walk around in as to be hazardous, how was that dealt with by the people using that? Aren't limits supposed to be overcome in interesting ways, not just ignored? I guess what I'm saying is this: The "rule of cool" only works when "cool" isn't just "stupid". (Oh and btw... I think village blacksmiths would make wargear when the occasion called for it, at least if the mass grave on Gotland is to be believed)
I as a fan of movies would love to see: 1. Knights fighting with helmets on. (maybe they don't speak when they fight? They can do the talking before and after the actual fight.) 2. Scabbards (and other items and clothing) that have some color to them. I'm sick of all the fantasy/medieval movies with only gray and brown. 3. Single handed swords and shields. 4. Less leather. (Its not as cool as movie makers think) Hollywood is just scared of trying anything different from the norm.
@@LucifersLandLord not amazing in terms of "trying something different" but certainly not close to the worst. As a movie it's phenomenal, but historically speaking it's definitely not amazing. It's like they just read some critical comments on a fantasy medieval youtube video and picked out the most prominent criticisms then made sure to give a quick nod to them. For example the duel near the beginning of the movie, where two stumbling knights slashed their swords at eachother for a bit was far from sensical, however they made sure they grappled and used daggers at the end. Armored opponents would be taken down using daggers in CQB. Other than that, there wasn't much to go on. The whole movie had a drab appearance, which while that is a result of the style they chose (and it worked great) it isn't really how you would want to go for a historical feeling movie. The Agincourt battle scene showed men at arms getting slaughtered by longbow arrows through plate armor. The whole battle was a giant pool of disorganized knights breaking off into one on one duels practically giving up on any sort of formation in the first second. Henry V's armor was very wonky and did not fit well. Henry V, the king, immediately ditched all his armor and more specifically his helmet and it all being conveniently explained away (like a king is going to rely solely on maille and a cuirass in the age of near full plate). Archers shot straight up in the air and rained their arrows on top of their enemies (which by all accounts did not happen). And the extras generally had really shitty armor. Basically most of the movie does fall victim to common medieval misconceptions and movie tropes. However, while there is alot to criticize historically about the movie, there is much to praise. It is certainly a very good movie, and it's historical shortcomings aren't overly prevalent enough to take away from the entertainment value. (Besides maybe the archer thing).
well here is the thing, making movies costs serious money. Are you gonna risk that on something that might not work ? Or use the route you know does work ? Especially if the new route, even if it does work, might not make a huge difference. It is risk versus reward.
I get this way with things like knitting, crochet, and spinning in historical films. I get that it just looks like she needs to be doing something industrious with her hands but THAT'S NOT HOW THAT TOOL WORKS AUGH! Thanks for the insightful video. :D
@@parad0xheart Popular culture used to get away with anything easily for ages, because only isolated individuals among the audience recognized particular flaws. These days one person recognizes a sci-fi engine room as the brewery it is and the wole internet can be made aware overnight. I think this does call for a change of approach on the filmmakers' part.
- Realistically, a 7.62mm machine gun w/ 1200 rounds of NATO ball ammo! 😄 - Imaginarily, full gothic plate armor w/ sword and shield and I still got beaten by them even though they wore leather jerkins because all I could do is roll 1's! 🤦
There is a counterpoint to be made to the "studios have to pander to the masses" argument, which is the existence of trendsetters. If you take the sci-fi realm for example, movies like Interstellar and The Martian have been celebrated for actually taking the science into consideration. Now, people may not understand the reason why a black hole looks the way it does in Interstellar (which is actually based in the real physics), but it still looks amazing, because it is done and used right. And such movies can be game-changers for their respective genres. It may be tricky, but I do believe it is possible to achieve a good deal of historical accuracy while keeping even general audiences entertained and captivated. One just needs to see to it that those elements that are not self-explanatory to the audience are either so far in the background as to not distract people, or explained through the plot and context. A good example of this is "Master and Commander", which is an amazing movie that manages a substantial degree of historical accuracy. Audiences may be initially confused by some story elements, such as teenage boys being officers on the ship. But you accept them as part of the story pretty quickly, because it's not nessecary to fully understand them in order to follow the story.
Very good point. People in theaters don't "yearn" for it because nobody even tries. They come up with an excuse and stick to it. And it's really sad when the event itself is already amazing in the first place.
Reminds me of CSI Cyber. They tried to dumb it down for the masses... In the end, it was a show "too complex" for the masses and "stupid, nothing makes sense" for people who actually knew about stuff.
@skywyze I can't speakwith authority on the matter, and I deliberately only pointed to the depiction of the black hole as an example, since I've seen other sources refer to it as more accurate to science than anything else seen on film. Hence the phrase "taking (...) into consideration". Wether it's accurate or not isn't for me to descide.
@@migueeeelet An uncanny valley of accuracy if you will. I think there are few things that take me out of the experience of watching a movie than realising that the moviemakers think their audience is dumb.
@@rockyblacksmith Entertainment should be made to be entertaining, but not stupid. You can simplify and streamline, but don't overdo it. It'd be like if Burger King suddenly called it's salads "gourmet" or some sophisticated shit.
Always found the complete removal of colour from movie history interesting, as per your flowery scabbard - first lesson was the room of heads in the Vatican, heads from now marble white statues (removed by the catholics in the cultural cleansing), but still painted in lurid colours, as they were in the day - Apollo's big blue cartoon eyes stick in my memory. I have read the interior of Castles were festooned in colour, yet Hollywood has them as bare stone, as they are now, as ruins. Would love to see just a few shows/films do something 100% accurately, just so we could experience the true culture shock of history. Thanks for the video.
Many cathedrals, too, were wildly colored and painted before many of the "puritan" style movements in later centuries. It's such a funny thing we're missing out on. :)
The ancient Greek iconic white marble buildings. Not so much. Scientific analysis has recently discovered microscopic paint samples in the stone. They were wildly colored in primary colors. So were the clothing worn by the Greeks. No white togas at all.
Grahame Nicholson - Yep, the Elgin Marbles. All technicolor. We did see a glimpse of the colour of the Ancient World in that excellent TV series Rome, but such treats are rare.
@Sir Rather Splendid... & unfortunately the reason that AWESOME Show was cut back by 2 or 3 seasons short as it was originally intended to run for by Hirst ( I think 🤔 it was Hirst? maybe not ) Is because it had already had gone WAY over Budget by Millions unfortunately! It's sucks we live in this“NOT interest in History” Century!
I worked in the film industry here in the USA , and the main decision motivation is budget. The movies are getting better with historical accuracy. I love your work and products you sell. Peace William Sterling
Love this video, it leave me with a lot to re-consider. I can read english pretty well but understand spoken english is very difficult for me. Your way of speaking is so "sharp" and accurate that your words are really easy to understand, thank you for that.
LOTR is a proof that it is possible to make good and practical fantasy swords/armor in the movie, pity novadays noone doesnt even try and care about such things
Funnily enough, i dont think that the books describe any form of body armour other than mail. So the movies are, in a certain sense historically inaccurate.
@UCuis6c20HsKgWdIwdMbGmJg platemail is not specifically mentioned, however, plate helmets are so it's really not too much of a stretch. ornate helmets are a big deal through all ages in middle earth.
Swords and non-plate were good. But stuff like the gondor armour suffers from a lot of the same fantasy design issues as most fantasy plate does. Breastplates go way too low, the shoulders articulate way too loosely, the weird articulated tassets, total lack of throat or lower limb protection, etc.
The Mandalorian proves that protagonists can be helmeted for extended periods. Iron Man showed in 2008 that you could have a helmeted yet expressive face and unmuffled voice (inside the helmet) using the conceit of a virtual camera.
I'd say your second point stands, but the Mandalorian can have protagonists with helmets on for extended periods of time because their actors/actresses aren't your A-list/blockbuster actors/actresses who make $10+ million each film they star in.
@@IngenieurStudios Pedro Pascal is not that famous, and I'm saying that as someone who enjoys his acting. Last time I checked Pedro is making six figures in the shows he's been in and his net worth is two million dollars. Now compare that to someone like Robert Downey Jr. who on average makes $33 million a film and whose networth is $300 million. It speaks for itself.
Not to mention that this helmet design harkens back to Boba Fett whose face is never seen in the original trilogy so we have an iconic character that has popularized the notion of a helmeted protagonist with an obscured face. The design is probably well-known enough that the audience can accept it as a substitute face for a while.
@@calebsmith7179 Lmao where the fuck did you get his net worth is only $2 million. The low end of estimates are at $30 million, and the highest at nearly $50m. Come on now, get the fuck out of here with throwing out false information.
Obviously a European Troll, real Americans hunt Orc’s with those murder machines, those AR-15’s (that stands for Assault Rifle Weapon and 15 bullets a second that the hi capacity clip can spit out from the drum, BTW). 😈
@@tyrionas Well, since "the 13th warrior" is a fictional defictionalized "Beowulf" written by a historical character, they actually had a long road to walk with realism ;) Tod is triggered by the helmet... I'm triggered by the cavemen: there's so much wrong in them that I don't even know where to begin.
I made two knives for the "Lonesome Dove" series, following exactly the propmaster's directions. The "powers that be" decided they were too "shiny", but did use one in one scene.
This was an excellent primer on many of the decisions that go into the historical accuracy (or lack) of a show. I started in Hollywood as a costumer, and worked most of my life in TV & film seeing the kinds of compromises you address here. A pet peeve of mine has always been the lack of helmets, or hats, on main characters in historical shows (up thru the great hat rejection of the 1960s) - but the lowest common denominator of a viewer must be able to distinguish characters in quick shots, and that won't happen if they have a helmet or hat on (just think of the bizarre & torturous lengths characters go to in removing helmets in the middle of combat in a film!). One point you didn't mention is how all the correct historical weapons & armor in the world go right out the window if an A list celebrity 'can't' learn to wield it, or just doesn't 'feel' it represents his or her character - the director will just say 'right, what else do you have?' and now it is on you to solve.
To distinguish a character you can give him a distinguish helmet or shield so that can be easy solved and yes this did happen in combat that William the conqueror removed his helmet to show he was still alive .
The only caveat is when the character is completely distinguishable even when wearing a helmet. You are never going to not know which Avenger Tony Stark is... Or which character is Darth Vader. The trick is to associate the character with the helmet on before we learn who the actor is. Then when we see the distinctive helmet we know who is wearing it. But then they would just get the helmets wrong every time.
For The Last Viking it might've been better to paint crosses on the Saxon shields - not historically accurate either but not as out of place looking as square ones.
Sounds to me like the idea of a dumb director or producer that they had to go with.. The hairs on that show make it unbearable for me, models today don't walk around with hair that pretty and well done, how is this pretty boy in the late migration era pulling that off ? Cut it short or at least make it look bad, it's not like they had shampoo back then ffs.
@@Aconitum_napellus Not enough to look like his hair. Models today don't have hair like that on a daily basis. That's just got out of expensive salon level hair. The character travels for a week on horseback and has impeccable hair, this is migration era europe, they weren't bathing everyday either. It's just too jarring for me..
@@baysword It depends on the movie and how it looks. Another thing that annoys me is loose long hair combat, It's one of the worst things you could possibly do, it gets in the way of your vision and doesn't provide any benefit. Tie it up ffs, you're going into combat, you want things as optimal as you can get, looking cool is not relevant when it could cost your life.
This reminds me of how I'm always making fun of cop shows for those raid scenes where all of the SWAT officers are fully armored, but the heroes go rushing in first with no helmets, even though I know full well this is so that the audience can tell who the heroes are. I think I'm going to keep making fun of movies for getting things wrong even when I know their reasons for it because that's just how I am :P
I get the reasons but I also think that the reasons are stupid. Now if the companies wants to pander to the idiots, sure. But I can also be as aloud and noisy as the masses and try to force the company to pander to my taste.
"The mass of people will be confused if peasants aren't always in artificially bogus drab garb or too many colors on scabbards." Okay, perhaps creativity comes into play to set the record straight for the mass of people. And entertainment enhanced as well as historical record corrected for the mindless dirty masses.
I know it's hard, and complicated in ways I don't understand. You can hear quite a bit about the process by watching movies with commentary tracks, for example. But I still think they can do better; That there's a lot to be gained from visuals whose meaning goes deeper than surface level, and a world that makes physical sense for the story to happen in, which might help things happen for established reasons instead of arbitrarily.
On the gaudy colours and flower decorations, I would say it is a self fulfilling prophecy: For fear of the character being perceived unmanly, they are clad and armed dull and colourless. But the audience always sees serious manly dudes in black and brown, and is conditioned to expect a borefest aesthetic. I have to say, a decent person who. Ommands respect, can do so in a flowery costume just as well, if he is woth his salt as an actor.
I was disappointed to not see the Boltons in mostly pink clothes in GoT. There's Ramsay's flayed.man armour. It would be expensive and time consuming, but really badass.
plus the perception at the time, and thus the expectation of the onlookers, could be drastically different. Showing off how filthy rich you are by having all sorts of exquisite jewellery on you scabbard could have been ultra-manly.
dunno about anyone else, but the most enjoyable thing about blood splatter in movies for me is how fake it is. Like in some Samurai movies, where off shot a head is cut off, and about forty gallons (US) of blood hits the wall. THAT is funny. Faces of Death style accuracy makes me ill. There is a move called Dead Alive from New Zealand. It was so over the top ridiculous it was the funniest zombie movie I'd ever seen until Dead and Breakfast. I was on a remote job somewhere in the 90's and saw a video for rent in a store that said "Dead Alive Productions" so I rented it without looking at the cover or the back. It was a series of snuff vignettes, of actual people being killed and/or eaten alive by animals. No. Just, no. I LIKE the fake stuff.
@@phillipsofthedriver I think it is Peter Jackson's first film. It is the one with the priest "kicking ass in the name of the lord" and with the dude who strapped the lawnmower to his chest to kill zombies, right?
@@phillipsofthedriver Check out Texas Chainsaw Massacre. My mother is like you, after 50 years in ER, she likes the fake stuff, and Texas Chainsaw had her howling in laughter.
I hate how everyone DIES INSTANTLY when shot anywhere on their body. Cripes. In my graphic novels, I mock everything and every one. EX: every time someone's head is chopped off or ripped off....i have their head on the ground, wondering why it takes over 3 minutes for them to die, and how awful it is just being that head on the ground, ha ha.
You want to cast an actor that will let you cover his face for an entire film and he will crush it, Tom Hardy is your man. Also Karl Urban. Let those two play medieval knights and it will blow everyone’s mind.
Great video; Thank you. My favorite movie of all time is Excalibur. On the DVD commentary they talk about how they employed an entire army of smiths to make armour and weapons. The reliance on steel costumes adds a lot of weight and authenticity to the movie. Much better than when a movie uses Poly-Urethane.
Love that movie...and to go with the video, the armor is way more advanced for the period it is supposed to be in....but it looks so flipping cool....I am happy they made the choices they did for that movie. The armor and weapons and fight scenes are amazing.
the costumes where aluminium , Adam Savage did a 7 part series where Terry English makes him armour and Excalibur is referenced a lot (he made all the armour). It's well worth the watch
At some point I realized that movies are just fun. Once I realized that, I found I could enjoy almost every movie, no matter how many hundred years the helmet is apparently off by. If it’s a strictly historical movie, like one actually based on real people and real stories, then I think they should be more accurate. But other than that, it’s just so much easier to not care, and it’s so much more fun.
"Flowers on scabbards" " Interestingly, when we depict ancient China, or ancient Japan, or Arabia we see bright livery, contrasting colors, and beautiful patterning and no one bats an eye. Isn't this on of the MAIN reasons so many people misunderstand the European medieval period as drab, dreary, and primitive and medieval weapons being heavy, cumbersome cudgels little better than marginally sharpened hunks of iron? The same thing Kinda goes for peasants. We don't depict the ancient Chinese/Japanese/Arabic peasant as stupid or inept. That mostly seems to be reserved for depictions of European peasants. Coincidentally this is how I first came to have interest in medieval Europe. Seeing stupid, dopish peasants contrasted against massive castles which spoke of an intimate knowledge of engineering and physics didn't seem right at all. Also f*** back scabbards. Seriously, f*** those things. Wouldn't ork hunting swords be the same thing as people hunting swords?
The key reason why we think of medieval colours as dull is that the colours have faded in time. Same holds for the Roman period. They covered their walls in quite hideous colours back then but the colours have simply faded away so we now think they used to have white walls.
@@Warentester I don't really think so. The vast majority of people have never even seen actual clothing from that time and , if they do, its usually pretty obvious the stuff is faded and aged. The key reason we think of medieval colors as dull is hollywood and the way they depicte the medieval era as dull, gray, and dreary.
@@Warentester Well one reason for the dark medieval settings where the fact that only nobelmen could aford anything that was colourful. A peasant would not run around in blue, yellow or red cloths back then.
Points well made !!! I worked with the 13thWarrior Props department . Originally they were making a Period looking 9th Century Viking movie . Then different Directors came in and they picked what they thought Looked Good instead of what was Right . . . As you stated, t'is a collaborative effort and not a Historical happening .
The movie is great, the swords and outfits more than terrible. Vikings didn't have double handed swords. The swords didn't weigh over 1kg at the heaviest. So it could've never been too heavy for the little Arab. Vikings didn't wear hides and leather vambraces. A viking wore leg windings for example, which could be quite colourful. Even pink or lilac. Moviemakers have the duty to educate their audience. The real outfits are not more expensive than the crap they are wearing instead. So that can't be an argument.
This has been enlightening. Thank you for giving us some of your insight into this, it actually helps me be able to ignore these issues cause I can just lay blame at them being practical instead of ignorant.
I love this no nonsense, no bs, video. You are explaining the realities of the industry, and why choices are made. It just comes down to the bottom line, making money, for the studio. People can get their medieval equivalency of under woos all in a twist, but if it does not work in the movie, no matter how accurate it may be, it has to go, or be changed. I wish more videos like this came out, to shut people up.
I'd challenge the idea of bascinet helm always being worn visor down. At least in the logic, to a degree, some records that refer to wounds, scars on the face being common. From what I've seen and can remember, the bascinet was worn visor down when in the charge, cavalry or on foot, towards the line. When archery was being actively faced, it was down. Why? Arrows to the face aren't fun and can be lethal. On the other hand, when it was close combat, when it was down to the swords, shields, pollhammers and pollaxs, then the visor went up. Why? You've got better visibility, better air flow, for long term fighting. Both of which matter when it's two lines that have hit each other at some force. It's easy to get around the back of another fighter, combatant. The more visibility you have, the harder that becomes. It's also the reason I think a lot of professional men-at-arms fought in groups, pairs, at a minimum. One guy to watch your back, while you watch his. From memory a certain king was famously wounded with an arrow while his visor was up. A particular king who was at Agincourt to be precise. It's not a great argument, but I think it holds water. As for back scabbards, sheaths, they did exist. Celt warriors in wagons wore them that way, so it wouldn't interfere with controlling the horse, chariot etc etc. So...... context matters if I channel a little Matt Easton here.
Yeah its plausable. Check out eastons video with toby capwell on this very subject. I believe they have a 3 part series on armour, helms and the whole arrow and armour debate. Its quite good. i like when those 2 get together.
@@LionofCaliban yeah its pretty good. You kinda cant argue with capwell i reckon on all this stuff. He lives and breathes it as a scolar and as a practicing knight knows these things from a practical level that most people alive can only speculate on. So if he says destrias were unicorns. Then i believe it lol
@@opwards At some point with archaeology, you just have to get out and try stuff out. Easy to argue from a book, harder to argue when you've got the thing in your hands and things and they're not making sense.
16:30 When I go orc hunting, I carry an enchanted flanged mace, a heater shield, and a Rondel dagger. I would also use a bow, but my dexterity is only a 9, so I usually miss anything with an AC above 12 or so.
They have a high reduction so blunt weapons are a good bet, but you are better off with heavy armour and a 2h tetsubou for the 2k3 damage, reduction ignore whilst keeping the knockdown chance. Bow build would be good with high reflexes, so your TN would be high but your DPR would be low due to the high reduction and low arrow damage, at least if the orcs wore armour. This could reduce your chance of getting tainted, but you might get one turn ko'd. Alternatively go magic, because magic is cheating.
The issue I've got is that the closer to the present a film is set we get a very different standard of authenticity- there are errors in films like Saving Private Ryan but these are so minor in comparison to things like Kingdom of Heaven; small details are wrong in SPR but if you feature a mock up tank they at least try and make it LOOK like a WW2 tank- whereas films like KOH place half of Saladin's forces in 16th/17th Ottoman gear to make them 'distinct'. Personally I agree that there are compromises that need to be made for action and cinematography, but the current compromises are by and large unnecessary and due to the perceived "industry standard practice".
@@philosophpascal - yeah but at least it looks fairly realistic and is reasonably authentic. It is a fictional story but at least the period visuals are decent.
Remember, though, that if something happened in the 16TH or 17TH century, everyone from that time period is centuries dead. Everything humans know we dug up studying history. Compare that to WW2. We forget that survivors of those battles are still around. So if you depict a WW2 battle, it is still quite possible that some of the actual people who actually served and fought in that particular battle are still alive today, and can provide first hand accounts of it. Speaking of that, they can tell stories of that directly to us younger generations, so we can get that information direct. Not true for 17TH century battles. Sure, your average moviegoer isn't an expert on anything they're seeing, but of course the standard gets higher as you get closer to the present because the closer you get to the present, the more the audience knows about how things were. And because of that, perceptions also change. We tend to romanticize things and such from times that are longer ago, and so people's expectations are based less on reality and more on fiction as you go further back.
@@BologneyT To add to your point, it doesnt help that the ancients themselves cared less for historical accuracy when handing down tales of their battles than they did for mythyfying their kings and war heroes. After all, excalibur being a magical sword is far more entertaining as a tavern story than admitting that it was probably just made of really high quality steel and probably cost the king a small fortune to have it forged
Thank you, Tod. That was the most intelligent discussion of Hollywood compromises I've heard. I used to be a manufacturing engineer and you have no idea (or maybe you do) how often I hear complaints about the problems or inadequacies of this or that consumer item - from people who have no clue how things are made and who wouldn't pay the cost of perfection if it were offered. There are so many compromises between an idea and a product that the buying public is not privy to. And that is similar to your demonstration of the many compromises between historical accuracy and a filmable and enjoyable movie.
When I saw this, i originally thought it was just going to be someone talking bad about props used in movies. I'm really glad it was a well spoken explanation of why the props used are used. I have done some video production, and even in the small things I did, there were things you needed to worry about like this.
@@ScottKenny1978 Neither have i, ever since i left 40k with 5th ed. and dark herasy got discontinued :( Though i still do have my Warhammer Fantasy Orc army, which i sadly stopped playing because age of sigmar happened *sigh*
This guy makes good points and presents it in a very understandable way. I learned a bit from the video. Good job. That being said, Robin Hood with a recurve is inexcusable.
I just thought I'd answer your rhetorical question on orc hunting. Last time I went was about a week ago and we used spears , axes, and long knives and fire. Swords are for dueling noble men. LOL :D
Thank you so much for making this video, I worked in the SFX-industry for 15 years, and everything you said in this video is spot on! Now, where I worked we primarily did stunt weapons; everything from safe remakes of historical weapons, or stunt versions of some real steel weapons someone had been contracted to make, to various improvised weapons. We made everything from bits of furniture, construction materials like planks, lead pipes, and tools. We made safe-to-slam-an-A actors-face-into steel bars for some prison door scene, and barb wire, baseball bats, trench clubs, and a bunch more I've already forgotten. We made bricks, rocks, broken off branches, a paving slab, and even a baked potato once. But, to be honest, the job I'm most proud of was when I "cracked the code" to making a bamboo cane you could beat the shit out of someone's bare ass with, without leaving as much as a red mark. That was probably my most memorable moment. That, and figuring out how to make realistic barb wire from rubber, without casting. Did learn quite a bit about barb wire in the process, but that's usually how it goes when you dive headfirst into a subject, isn't it...:-D Another thing I learned, is that the stunt guys are usually easy to explain that "this stunt prop is only going to stand up to a certain amount of abuse", they got it right away, they are used to make something look a hell of a lot more violent and dangerous than it actually is, in much the same way a trench club built by an SFX-guy, isn't going to cause any damage at all, but won't last as long as a real one would. We totally understood each other. Actors though, that's a different story...:-D Anyways, I'm rambling, thanks for sharing your knowledge, I've had the same "complications" as I'm sure you've had at some point, trying to convince yourself that the show must go on, even though what you're asked to do is totally against what you know as historical facts, and can barely be passed off as realistic. We might occasionally know better, but we're not always the ones making the decisions, and that's just the way it is - the only ones that will notice, are the other nerds that'll hate the inaccuracies as much as we do.;-)
I love the 13th warrior, mostly because I went into it thinking "This is going to be like if you told Beowulf through the lens of Die Hard." and it was!
Hey :) Thank you so much for enlightening us! I assumed that some of the "inaccurateness" (...that I actually notice, I am by no means an expert on that) partially comes from the requirements you mentioned like seeing the actors faces, or being able to move properly; and some of it maybe stems from bad research, or lack of interest. But it is good to know that advisors are mostly asked to help make movies and series as accurate as possible. I am not bothered when I see things that seem "historically wrong". But it is good to know more about the various reasons behind the conscious decision, or even necessity to do things a certain way.
@Afqwa You raise a good point. Though I'd wager that while they were highly skilled at making weapons and armors -being topshelf artisans, they would not be able to read/write and do higher math. The question then becomes 'what defines a scholar?'
Hey, where else would you carry a big ol great sword? Certainly not on the belt since it's too long. The back is the only logical place to carry it if you wanna keep your hands free.
I don't see a problem with back scabbard when having TRANSPORT-concept in mind. People say, "that a warrior would carry his sword on the shoulder". Agree with that - but ONLY when in combat situation/ danger proximity. But if you tell me they were carrying their big focking swords on their shoulder, 12-16 h a day ; or marching with it on the shoulder...I won't believe it ! And anyway, a warrior wouldn't have/ keep only 1 weapon. When his "main weapon" would be on his back, probably a shortsword would hang on his belt. Daggers too. So NO REAL NEED to draw his weapon from his back scabbard, if shit got real. PS : I would find it much easier on horseback to draw the sword from the back, especially when you are leaning forward while riding/ galloping.
Would love to have a Hollywood classic fantasy film protagonist, grey drab clothing, excessive leather, and drop him in an otherwise accurate Medieval setting. The whole movie's perspective is from the Medieval folk's viewpoint remarking on the strangeness of the classic Hollywood person's views and actions.
Pretty sure there was a Twilight Zone episode where a pampered actor who plays a cowboy sheriff dressed in fancy clothes who always wins his gunfights and gets the girl is suddenly dropped into an accurate western town and has to fight a real-life desperado/badass. If I remember right, it didn't go well for the fake lawman!
"getting off our high horse" is really true... I was on Quora for a while and I was annoyed by how many people seemed to think they were authorities on some subject just because they had a friend of a friend who talked about it once
I always imagined the gladiator’s helmet in 13th Warrior was some antique that he bought in Byzantium that originally came from Rome or even Egypt (ideally somewhere dry) that sat in someone’s storeroom or was someone’s decoration for 6 or 700 years. It’s unlikely, but not impossible.
I understand what you're saying, and your comments are valuable... but I'll always hate back scabbards.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +32
Shad M. Brooks of Shadiversity channel had shown that you can make back scabbard for longsword work - but it looks quite different from an ordinary side scabbard used on back. Historically, from what I know, there were back half-scabbards for single-handed swords (in one region, in one time range).
I don't really have a problem with them in non-combat situations. In combat, or in situations where combat is likely, they don't really belong, but if the character is just toodling along in a safe area and is unlikely to need to draw the sword in a hurry, then they're fine. The can be made to release as well, so that you wind up with the sword and scabbard in your hand. Then you can draw the sword and toss the scabbard aside, rather than trying to get some forced and very clumsy over-the-shoulder draw.
@ That thing of his, like most of his guff, is ludicrous. I'd like to see how may of the swords fell out on a march or a ride. Yes, I've seen the vid. Shad should talk to some HEMA people about what's involved in a medieval melee
5 ปีที่แล้ว +7
@@jameslawrie3807 First, back scabbard in the form of half scabbard was done historically (though it is very rare). Shad idea is in my opinion better, though more time and material consuming; it is certainly not worse at retaining the sword. Second, the problem with back scabbard might not be with retaining the sword, or speed and predictability of drawing (and being quite vulnerable while drawing, opening for armpit thrust), but lack of weather proofing - if you want to be able to draw the longsword without no-clip you need opening in scabbard.
Back scabbard in some media are inevitable -- it can be a viable way to transport a large weapon over long distances on foot, and a lot of these films depict individuals, often on their personal undertakings, and they need weapons for fights to happen. Films and video games need this so these heroes won't be constrained to luggage trains, to better facilitate interesting and personal story-telling. Also while Big Fucking Swords are cool, butting that in a scabbard that hang by your hip is even sillier.
I absolutely love this video. Bar none, the most informative video I have seen on this topic. Thank you for explaining it in such a simple manner. Keep up the good work :)
Thank you for the elucidation. I am not that level of historian by any stretch of the imagination, but often know when something is not quite correct. You taught me the why of it today.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Probably the most annoying thing in movies is that armour often doesn't do anything. People just slash through mail and sometimes even plate.
GoT has a guy stabbing through plate, mail, and gambeson all the way through the torso. So two layers of plate, two layers of mail, and two layers of gambeson, plus the torso itself. These shows need to have a historian, and for the choreography there needs to be a HEMA instructor.
As a former weapon specialized stuntman, I would like to say there are a few reasons this commonly happens
1) Safety: You want the actor to perform the stunts, but he/she is not skilled enough. Hitting the armor is safe and there will be only a few people complaining, so why not.
2) Speed: The action has to be fast, but not really violent. I can write a choreography of one hero cutting through a dozen armored opponents, but it will be really bloody and I would need a lot of time to train the actor to actually do it. Cutting the chest or belly is the fastest and least bloody way of doing such a scene
3) Money: Most commonly, the budget cuts didn't allow more complex choreography to be in the scene. We were a rather cheap crew to film with, yet as far as I know, it can cost about 50 000 USD per day of training. With the payment like that for every day of choreography preparation, you don't wanna have too complex scenes.
(PS: Feel free to ask me anything about stunts)
The worst part of historical movies is the forced diversity.
@@Tyrhor How were stunts filmed? Are they seperated from the normal movie stuff, like on special days, or do they directly follow the scene before, to avoid continuety mistakes? I want to become a director, and learn much stuff. Not that easy without the right connections, so I ask anyone everything, I could need to know, to form a project and coordinate a team.
@@robertslobson Oy he was born an Aussie
-Oi, Pierre, have you seen our arrows lately?
-No, what about them?
-They got black fletching on them... Pierre, are we the baddies?
Webb and Mitchell.
Something 9 of 10 movie goers wont notice anyway.
We need this in some movie
@@Sk0lzky It should have been in Robin Hood: Men it Tights.
@@kevinsullivan3448 or Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
The last time I went hunting Orcs, pretty sure we were armed with just some No2. HB pencils and some funny dice.
Ah, nostalgia :-)
There is NOTHING funny about a D4 when you step on it. Nerd caltrops.
Funny or Fuzzy dice?
Heh ... I saw "armed with just some NO2." and my first thought was "what does nitrous oxide do for you against orcs?"
And a can do attitude
“They will wear open-faced bascinet” mighty bold of you to assume the actors will wear helmets at all
They might... but then there's always some excuse as to why the helmet is either taken off, falls off, or ends up missing.
Yeah Henry V with Kenneth Branagh no helmet at all, as a royal noggin needs no protection.........too much BS I don´t watch reguardless of the explainations. Best example "The Last Kingdom" books great entertainment, the film puke! Lindey Beige took that series nicely apart. Not financing filmmakers rubbish.
Helmet off then I turn off movie.
They should ALL wear helmets all of the time, and keep their visors up with one hand.
- Monty Python
@@Tiberiotertio Especially after he got shot with an arrow at 16 years of age.
everyone knows that a trotting horse's hooves sound like coconuts
I wonder why that might be... 😃
@Kent Goertzen
What the hell are you even trying to infer?
Swallows are known for carrying migrating coconuts.
@@lordwasabi6330 African or European swallows?
th-cam.com/video/liIlW-ovx0Y/w-d-xo.html
Sometime knights don't even need an horse...but a pair of coconuts :)
I can tell you what kind of sword I use to hunt Orcs. I’m more reluctant to admit that I haven’t found an Orc.
You have to coat the blade with the blood of a maiden, that attracts the orcs.
To properly hunt Orcs, you need a machine gun. The reason is that they are too fast, too strong, so you need a high rate of fire - definitely no hunting rifles.
OR you need even more phantasy - then you use a sword bigger than a human.
I consulted with Professor Orc and he told me that their worst fear is to be rendered immobile by laughter, they really cannot control their views of the ridicule. And ridicule is abounding in all "medieval" enactments in movies and comics. Look at what happened to the Dragon when he looked at puny George 😉
King Elessar promised to get rid of the Orcs. Promises made, promises kept. You're welcome. Vote #Elessar2020
Wut weapon dammit???!!!
I have the same problem
One further reason for the industry love for the back scabbards is - I'd imagine - that it allows you to show the weapon right alongside that expensive face. You get the actor AND the character specific hilt design neatly right there in a close-up.
My view is that I can deal with it being historically inaccurate but not historically implausible. They can have armour that's a couple of centuries out of date and the wrong colours but it should behave like armour and be functional in the setting.
The thing that bothers me most in when they get things wrong by overcomplicating things. In Vikings, for instance, saxon or frank soldiers are given some ridiculous armour that never existed in orther to make them look more uniformed than the vikings... Yeah, I undertans, making lots of long chainmail gambesons (the most acuratte type of armour for carolingian era soldiers) would be pretty expensive... BUT gambesons made of cloth would be much cheaper and historically accurate!
Most foot soldiers who could not afford mail (or whoose lieges could not afford to equip them anyway) still would wear cloth gambesons. With cloth gambesons, helmets and shields you can equip a large group of soldiers and make them look a real medieval army. Add some officers or knigths with full mail armour, some mail coifs (you can buy them already made ones for just 40€ so you dont have your costume department saturated making mail) and you will get an uniformed regular army in no time... Also, when you need your soldiers to be gutted by vikings; it's much more realistic if they die easilly wearing ligth armour than if they are killed wearing full mail...or worse, full plate
But no. They prefer to made up wacky armours that did not exist nor even look to work propperlly (I'm thinking thoose englishmen in Braveheart; with random pieces of square metal bits just stiched into their sleeves and trousers)
So...no First Knight? I'm not the sort to actually ruin my filmgoing by trying to find all the historical inaccuracies, but I _hated_ the stylized armor in that flick. It looked like they were wearing the medieval equivalent of bowling shirts.
@@purpledave3271 yeah it's a shame cos it's an extremely good film in other ways. At least in that one the armour actually does something some of the time... doesn't just get chopped through like paper.
YES!
"With respect to the requirements of art, a probable impossibility is to be preferred to a thing improbable and yet possible."
-Aristotle, Poetics
Impossible: a 12th century soldier wearing armor that wasn't seen before the 14th century
Improbable: a soldier weighing himself down with hundreds of pounds of plate mail that somehow still gets torn to shreds like it's tissue paper - they'd *probably* just go for maneuverability with the type of cloth gambesons Dhorn mentions, if their opponents' swords were so sharp (/magic)
I loved how Peter Jackson got around the wonderful LOTR artwork copyrights of Alan Lee and John Howe by employing them as art directors on the films. Very clever. We've all marveled at the beautiful pictures in many editions of the books over the years done by those two men, how fantastic that the films were able to recreate so many of those iconic scenes. With the added bonus of him being able to ask them "can you draw suck and such?", and then taking that drawing to the set department and saying "can you make it look like this?" Luckily both Alan and John were thrilled to be involved. That's how it should always be done, but sadly the opportunity to do so arises very rarely. Of course LOTR is a fictional work, not an actual historical recreation, but I'm sure you understand my meaning.
Great video Tod. I could listen to you all day.
Suck and such
Technically, you could hire the artist who owned the copyright to the descriptions and they would not have to provide you with the copyright they hold... itd need to be specified that they would use the copyright you want... so in effect, you're still buying the copyright..
@@Phenix19 An interesting proposition from Peter there ;)
On the cast audio commentary of Fellowship, I remember the Hobbits talking about turning up at the Rivendell set and seeing Alan Lee adding finishing touches onto things.
He wasn't just an art director, he actually helped WETA design and decorate many of the sets.
It's sort of sad that we've basically imagined a history without colour, so that every medieval peasant has to wear dirty beige, every castle has to be gray, togas are white and so on.
Leather biker gear
Throughout history colours were expensive
@@alextusv That very much depends on the colour. Red wasn't terribly expensive, nor was yellow. You might spot the difference between a cheap red and an expensive one, but "colour" by itself wasn't expensive, only the ones that were difficult to make dyes and paints of. That's why purple was such a big deal. It's not like nature itself defaults to dirty beige, and whitewash for the houses was dirt cheap.
my local castle is red cause its made out of brick
@@yalewaller5721 which was cheap?
Personally i would think seeing a battle from the perspective of a knight in full plate trough a visor could make a good claustrophobic scene.
Add heavy breathing and strikes too, just to add tension to it, hell, i know a good story for it too, give a bit more time, a script
@@osmacar5331 budget wise a short would be extremely doable and youtuable
Actually I remember seeing something like that in my early schoolyears: th-cam.com/video/I0wPpCXG7b4/w-d-xo.html
Not much, but close to the point )
@@dennispetrov9628 that was great. If someone were to take that idea with a higher budget and better choreography, it would be amazing. Like something out of the videogame, 'Kingdom Come: Deliverance'
@@zerozeroone4424 yeah, and it would be even more amazing to watch in a VR-headset
My personal opinion... Anduril, Glamdring, and Aragorn's "Ranger Sword" from Peter Jackson's LOTR were three of the most perfect, beautiful, realistic, and ideal movie swords ever made.
Just to say as a person very familiar with the commercial industry, there's something Tod can't mention: it's not unusual to have complete idiots in decision-making capacities. Most of them are called 'producers.' They will sometimes demand absurd things in the Dunning-Kruger belief that they know better what punters will think or like. So yes, he's totally correct and illuminating about the many practical factors. But they're not always grown-ups.
And on the note about not being documentaries. Very true. But that can also be a cop-out when you realise that the masses Tod speaks about often derive their knowledge of history from these films and not from any other sources. Filmmakers have more responsibility than they like to tell themselves. And it's frequently only the opinion of the directors and producers that the masses will need these changes in order to enjoy the film as entertainment - and these heavily altered films sometimes bombing, and very accurate ones sometimes raking in millions will never convince them otherwise. They're not as rational as they pretend to be.
And that, I bet, is a major reason for silly and stupid errors, like giving all the British cavalry red trousers (rather than only the 11th Hussars) in the film Charge of The Light Brigade.
I have to disagree with your second point that films have a responsibility for the mass's knowledge of medieval history. You are absolutely right many people develop their pool of "knowledge" from said films, but that is their fault. Unless the movie claims to be educational, they bare no responsibility for the stupid decision of a person to take what they see as immediate truth.
Look at Kathleen Kennedy, she was kept as a producer because she made nice coffee. Moment she was in charge you could see ALL her terrible decisions.
I've worked on some horrific productions where you got (too many) producers putting their oar in purely for the sake of being seen to be "contributing".
People are stupid. A person /can/ be smart, insightful and curious about truth, but people, en masse, are tribal, entrenched in their own ignorance, and stupid.
I feel your pain Sir!!! I'm a locksmith who occasionally gets work making or modifying prop locks and other lock related devices for movies and TV shows filmed locally...
My first one went like this...
Them... "OK, so it's a 17th century pirate ship and we need you to make this key (purchased in bulk from some home decor store) work this thingie"..... "
Me "OK, well that's not period accurate, see ships back then would have had toggles or slide bolts, and usually not locks as locks were both expensive and prone to rust back then... ALSO even if it IS a lock... this key is wrong.... it's not even really a key, it's way too big.... see it should be a...."
"We're making a kids movie... Not a documentary... We just need it to look good and pop on screen, can you do it or not?"...
Me "YES SIR!!!! I can make that work!!!"
Then they tell you last minute that they need 6 more IDENTICAL copies within 24 hours... (now I plan for this, but back then it was a shock)
Honestly the response you got is exactly what I think when someone starts nitpicking those things.
Did the movie say it was historycally correct in every little aspect? No? Well then shup up and watch the movie.
@@THEPELADOMASTER Oh I totally get it NOW... But for someone who also repairs and restores ACTUAL antique locks, as well as just being a locksmith, as we tend to be compulsively detail orientated (watching a scene in a movie involving lock picking, with a locksmith, is like watching a horror film with a trauma medic, something glaringly wrong just takes us completely out of the scene...)... It was a totally different mindset then what I was used to.
@@derekbroestler7687 Don't you just stick a nail or a paper clip in the keyhole and jiggle? I'm pretty sure that technique beats every lock.
@@CrownRock1 you can actually jiggle a paperclip, but only if it's shaped right(like an actual picking rake), and even then not every lock can be raked open.
edit: and you still need to tension the lock somehow
@@logicplague well, I was just poking fun at movie style lock picking, but thanks I guess.
You pointed out a lot of valid reasons why movies props often can't be historically accurate, most of the reasons would have never occurred to me. Thanks for making me a tad bit smarter.
Still no excuse for the Nilfgardian armor that Netflix made.
That decision was made by the feminist writers (who did their damnedist to fk the story over with their agenda)
@@AMetroid uwotm8? xD Have a cup of tea, calm down, regain sanity.
@@TF_Tony its true tho. It was something along the lines of scrotum armor to show their toxic masculinity or some shit. Fact is the armor looks retardet but the show itself was pretty cheesy and b movie like anyway....
@@allanredhill8682 Citation needed. Although that concept is pretty hilarious and completely justified, if true, unfortunately, I couldn't find any sources to back up that claim other than people spreading the rumor without any original sources.
@@allanredhill8682 Doubt. I don't think it was meant to actually resemble a scrotum btw, it's probably incidental that people took it that way. My first thought was that it was a cost saving measure for background characters, but that didn't turn out to be the case. Either way they'll probably use different armor for season 2. Don't read into it too much mate.
I hunt the Orks with bolter loaded with Righteous Fury! Anyway, excelent stuff you are saying mister.
Deploy the space Marines!
I prefer an Assault Cannon with Hellfire rounds.
For emperors sake! Just send in a squad of terminators with a librarian in charge. Job done.
Purge with holy fire Brother.
@@RevRaptor898 May Emperor always shines at your dice Brother.
I love it when a movie has the balls to put their expensive actors behind helmets/masks the whole time. Props to Dredd and V for Vendetta
Gladiator
Season 1 GoT shows armor is actually useful then by the end they make it paper armor.
To be fair, it's not really "balls" in those films, the entire identity of those characters *is* the costume.
I'd just like to point out that in Dredd, his mouth is visible which can still convey quite a bit of emotion
The produces in Dredd wanted some scenes where Dredd takes off his helmet, but because Karl Urban is a massive Dredd fanboy he refused.
still waiting for that Corinthian Column blockbuster! Steve Buscemi as the master stonemason and Kate McKinnon as his muse, and the Rock as the columns of course. Cinema Gold!
гыыыы
You sir made me laugh hard. Thank you very much. May you have a great day!
You have no idea how many people would watch that movie just for The Rock. And probably not even be disappointed.
@Colin Cleveland Corinthian Column: The Second Row ;)
I'm not sure The Rock has the acting chops to convincingly play a column.
Great video sir. As a photographer who shot a lot of Cosplay and reenactors a varies timeframes I can certainly say that I've had to instruct people to pull things or turn ways that are completely wrong but look right from the camera side. In the end it's all about telling the story
Counterpoint to full face helmets: A Knight's Tale.
The actors wear armor obscuring their face during the majority of fights, I suspect it primarily worked because the plot revolves around tournament fights of short duration with plenty of opportunity to show faces during interludes, and doing so let stunt doubles more easily take over the roles of an actors.
It's a fantastic comedy, completely historically inaccurate and all the better for it.
That and the fact that they used stuntmen whenever the face shield was down thus saving them money
@@willis32 Yes, that's the "and doing so let stunt doubles more easily take over the roles of an actors." part =)
It never felt jarring though, it was very well done.
@@etelmo honestly most of the time it doesn't bother me. Unless you've got a bloke with a longsword charging a phalanx I can suspend my disbelief
Completely agree. Some of the best films have portions where they have the balls to have noone even talk for five or ten minutes, and a combat scene where you're locked into the combat with the main character could be fantastically done. No disrespect to Tod, but I felt like most of his points were like this. I don't want more conservative, mostly mediocre films (imo); I want something that really tries to do it perfectly. Like nail the narrative structure of it, alongside making it gritty, realistic and historically accurate. I've no doubt people can do that if they're just willing to bother and invest in the idea
"We will, we will ROCK YOU! We will, we will ROCK YOU!"
What do you mean that wasn't the common peasant's cheer??
Lord of the rings managed nice swords and hanging swords by the side! Kinda fun to think a fantasy film is more historical that actual historical films
Christoffer Bergström - I suspect that if riding you probably would hang the longsword somewhere on the horse’s harness anyway... trying to draw it from your side on horseback, you’d probably end up chopping the poor nag’s ears off.
In many ways, yes. However they suffer from the common mistake of armour being useless. I'm glad the main heroes only wore leather jerkins, because all the Gondorians who wore full plate still got killed effortlessly by crude arrows and slashing weapons.
@@Pro_Butcher_Amateur_Human this actually isn't that true. A lot of the time the orcs bash them over the heads and they fall down and arrows generally go through areas that are uncovered. Not always of course but there are many cases where this is true
@@Jhakaro I'm talking about the movies. In the books the Gondorian heavy infantry was very good, but in the films their armour was made of tissue paper. One (in the siege tower scene) gets killed by a slash across the chest that in real life would have just left a scratch on his chestplate.
Meanwhile, the director was rewriting Tolkien in his own image.
Some things they do wrong because of safety, because of convenience, for a particular look
But some things are wrong because the director/writer/producer said so ... and when they were told it was wrong, and everyone would know it looked out of place (including the masses) and were given a better, still unique looking option they insisted ... these are the ones I notice as it means the filmmaker just didn't care ....
David Hedges right, safety sure. Technical problems sure. Director/actor ego? Never, those idiots shouldn’t be paid a tenth of what they are.
Yeah those are the worst, like spins it doesn't add anything and everyone who has even spent a second thinking about how real life works hates them.
Films are not educational. They are entertainment.
You guys clearly confusing Netflix with the documentary channel?
Yeah, that's what this video is about.
Yeah, the big example of this that comes to mind is the Laurence Olivier Henry V. Where it had the infamous scene of a knight needing a crane to mount a horse. I remember seeing that the historical consultant begged the Olivier not to include it because it's not remotely historical and looks absurd, but he did it anyway.
re: "What sword to take Orc Hunting?" The sword you already own, and already know how to use. That is the PERFECT sword to hunt orc's with.
This.
If I went Orc hunting I would take a jingeom.
Not because it's especially good for orcs. Because it's the only sword I have some skill with.
So, a lightsaber?
@@purpledave3271 I you have one, then yes please, go Orc hunting. Just a suggestion, though, not Orcs with their own light-sabers. Be smart about this.
Coincidentally this is the same advice for people looking for the best gun for home defense
Still rather have a projectile or a reach weapon. Keep those things away from me.
The copyright aspect is interesting, I never thought about that. That sheds light on why some movie, TV, books, comics and games of the same initial story aren't exactly the same.
Kind of puts Disney's iron grip into perspective. They can make the same Mickey Mouse in whatever medium they want.
Copyright is such crap. Artificial monopoly. Anti-competitive garbage. Might as well throw for profit motive out the window... hence why there's only a handful of major media and publishers per each nation. They end up monopolizing content.
@@jmitterii2 : I think (don't know) that he's probably over-playing the degree to which copyright influences weapons choices made my movie makers. The idea of intellectual property is one of the few things that actually puts money in a creative person's pocket. I'd say we need MORE stringent copyright law. What we HAVE is a system where if you're big enough and have enough lawyers, nothing is sacred, and anything you almost had a thought about is YOURS. But if you're some low-budget creative type, they'll steal your stuff and sue YOU!
Copyright was one of the key reasons the Klingons look so different in STD.
@@harrymills2770 - I think we can reduce copyright length to 45 years after initial publication, while providing more stringent protection until the copyright lapses. Especially for the smaller scale producers, who might not have a legal team ready to go at a moment's notice.
My beef is that in most swordfights, a kick is more likely to connect than the actual sword strike.
Also, in the less realism oriented sword fights when the combatants are both really skilled and one loses his weapon he just beats the crap out of the other guy until he gets his weapon back. Why even have a weapon if you are apparently capable of killing an armed opponent with your fists better than with a sword.
Well, that's because if somebody gets hit with a sword they're killed instantly, right? They can't end the fights that quickly! :P
@@alkohnest because when you have empty hands you are better able to grapple/wrestle/maneuver by closing the distance if the enemy hasn't already foolishly gotten too close by being over confident. a weapon merely holds an opponent at distance. at some point if an enemy closes the distance beyond what your weapon is capable of functioning at then YOU are at a disadvantage unless you drop your weapon to free up that extra hand... OR pull out a hidden dagger/knife which is able to function in a far smaller space. CQB comes down to who has the better skill/will to want to live but hollywood always wants the hero to prevail so it's a false sense of reality in truth.
if they had those pointed boots it would make a load more sense tho
Dam, if only I brought a dagger too.
Speaking of what the audience wants,
We want...a shrubbery! (and, a period correct one, at that)
one that looks nice but isnt too expensive?
I just saw Roger. He went👉
And maybe a nice path down the middle
And maybe a herring to cut a tree
LMFAO!
"Camera Tests" are pretty much the FINAL arbiter of whether a thing can be used. A weapon, armor, or set piece that causes camera issues [i.e. a tight weave pattern on a gambeson that causes Moiré patterns to appear on the final product] is right out, regardless of how "authentic" the weave was for the character who is supposed to wear it!
I LOSE MY MIND every time I see them do the "NIGHTTIME" scenes in films, but it's clearly daytime but they use a BLUE FILTER on the camera to make it appear it's moonlight.
OOOOF!
Serious problems with this as a 3D designer. I would guess that such a thing comes down to budget.
Is there no way at all to adjust camera settings, use a different lens etc? Or is that a budget question rather then the equipment does not exist question? How the heck does documentaries get away with it when they do it accurately then?
@@HawkJedilord I think the primary problem is cost and often safety. If you want to film in the dark you have a limited time to film, you may have to pay people more, you will still need light but that is more difficult to get right and it might be dangerous for action scenes if the people performing can't see as well.
also dark environments may just not give you a good picture in the end so you end up having it not be true night so the audience can see what is going on better.
@@thebaumfaeller1477 I see. Unfortunate and interesting at the same time. Safety first is a good thing though.
Kurosawa managed to make great films without making very many of these compromises. Perhaps it was because he valued his culture over the minor inconveniences of his crew and his crew thought it worth the effort to portray things properly.
Essentially this is the missing element from western cinema... respect. In this light it's hard to watch any of it regardless of how fun it might seem at first.
Didn't he have a bunch of fights with katanas used to parry each other's blows? And isn't that very inaccurate in that they would shatter if used this way? I'm not an expert on this, but that is what I remember reading somewhere.
Correct
Katanas don't shatter under extreme stresses; if anything, they snap.
And no, direct parries-which are more actions of necessity than the deflects typically used-won't themselves cause either of two katanas to snap. However rigidly we may think they're held (even in the most firm hands), the way one holds a sword at the hilt has a fair lot of give.
On top of that, the sorts of high-carbon steel used in katana blades aren't entirely brittle enough for two swordsmen to clash with blade-breaking force at first collision. A well-prepared blade won't snap.
@@akafuguvids Isn't that accurate? Ideally you won't parry in that way, but if its what you have to do to not get iron in the face... you do it. If they hit like that you'll get a nick or a splinter, and maybe they will snap. It's not an instant snap when two swords touch though, otherwise they'd never have survived the age of shields.
This. It's showing respect to reality and having a movie be actually better than its CGI or flashy props.
Since when are pointed sabatons not cool anymore?? I wear those all the time. And guess who's always the centre of the party.
not the greatest for playing soccer though hey! lol.
Naturally you're at the center since everybody else forms a wide ring around you as they try to avoid getting stabbed in the shins.
Awesome for kicking people in the rear too, punches right through the pants and into the flesh for a painful wound.
How are they for driving?
@@ironpirate8 I had to get my car refitted a bit, but they're workable. just have to be careful getting out.
People talk about inaccurate historical fight scenes in movies, as if modern gun fights in movies are any more realistic :P
Hong Kong style gunfight
Ahhh the 15 shot six shooter.
What do you mean? Surely running into the face of John Wick so he can close range shoot you is a legit strategy
I understand that movies are flexible on what weapons are used, but when they show Japanese soldiers in ww1 with Soviet Ppsh43 from ww2 1943.... that upsets me. When I see a 1400s European knight with a katana.... that upsets me.
@@brianspenst1374 You think that's bad? What about Arnold Schwarzenegger wielding a $@!#'ing minigun off of a mount? Now I know the man is stronger than some oxen, but an 85-86 pound minigun with about 60lbs of ammunition, this isn't even including a power source because miniguns are electrically powered? First of all, it doesn't matter how strong you are, miniguns' weight distribution is ridiculously barrel heavy to compensate recoil, because otherwise firing it for just a moment would send it flying off the mount. Second, you cannot be stronger than the explosions of 2,000-6,000 7.62NATO per minute. Arnie would have lost an arm after the gun launched itself out of his hands. Lastly, How TF was he so accurate? The dude was sniping people with a heavy machine gun meant for covering fire and forcing enemies to retreat, hide, or get turned into swiss cheese. It wasn't meant to be a weapon to hit someone over the horizon with.
I will take a 15 shot revolver over a dude wielding a minigun on foot ANY DAY. At least in film, you could say he reloaded the revolver when the camera was focused on other entities. I mean speed loaders were a thing back then.
I’m a set carpenter and we do a ton of stuff that doesn’t make sense in reality. That’s why it’s important to have conversations with various departments to understand why things are. There is usually a reason. (Mostly visual, but not always). A lot of the times you need to over emphasize things so that normal viewers notice it.
Good video, I really enjoyed it. I will say that watching videos to explain the differences between movies and reality is enlightening for me, it’s just the attitude one takes making the video needs to be an effort enlighten as opposed to gotcha.
I'm sure all of those points are valid, but there is also the matter of immersion. Inconsistencies tend to take you out of the moment. A perfectly historically accurate movie may not be desirable for most people, but historical accuracy is a continuum, and moving more towards accuracy is certainly possible.
I would also differentiate between functional differences and purely aesthetic ones. Black fletchings or unhistorical family crests still work the same way. Rectangular Shields and back scabbards do not.
But in the end I really think there is room for both the more realistic and the more fantastical historical movies. We have both in SciFi too, like for example Star Wars vs The Martian. You could make very similar points about the more realistic end of the SciFi genre, but there are still lots of people who like (or even prefer) that.
"Inconsistencies tend to take you out of the moment." This seems like an over-generalization. Wasn't Tod clear that for 99% of the people who watch movies, it doesn't matter? Not that I specifically disagree with you; _Aliens_ drives me crazy to this day, but for most people, rectangular shield are just shields. The functional differences that irk you are somewhere between completely unknown and random trivia to most moviegoers.
@@AaronMcLin That can certainly be the case. But just to offer an example of particularly bad design: in the last Hobbit movie (ok, not exactly a historical story, but even so...) the dwarves' armour is so horrendously impractical that the actors had to take it off in order to do the fight scenes. To someone who never thought about armour design, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. They see a bunch of warriors in armour, and then they see these warriors taking off their armour before going to battle.
Your point reminds me of the "I swear by these swans" scene in Outlaw/King which had basically everyone (even the "experts") googling what the hell they just watched.
It's true, @@CosmicDuck494, that sometimes movies do a poor job of explaining character actions to the audience. It seems to me that if the armor doesn't work for the _actors_ then it would have been redesigned; so if we're seeing the warriors taking off their armor before going into battle, then the audience is meant to understand that the armor doesn't work for the _characters_ on-screen. The movie may have done a poor job of conveying that to the audience, but no-one's perfect.
Thank you, @@tods_workshop.
I agree about the fact that they need to pander to the masses. But that proves that the masses need to learn more.
Agreed. Plus, there is plenty potential to have very appealing visuals and atmosphere more more realistic elements.
As a re enactor one of my pet hates was ' ah but they didn't do that in (insert movie of choice)' . We spent so much time trying to teach people and that was what you got back 80% of the time, There were people who'd spent hundreds of pounds getting the right fittings and ornaments on their kit and get 'Saxon shields are square!'.
On the point about the scabbard decoration, no most audience members won't be going ' oh flowers, I wonder what that means?' to use GOT as an example , there are people arguing ' Dany went mad because of Sansa/ Jon/Tyrion, that's why she burnt KL.' never mind the fact she's been lighting people up since she got the dragons . Seriously , they really aren't noticing a scabbard design, well apart from the re enactors/ history buffs who will move it frame by frame to see said design and call it out for being ten years to early or in the wrong country.
@@wulfheywood1321 Yes! This is a big point I think. The 'Average movie goer' treats what they see in the movie as historical fact. It may just be an inherent bias in humans to believe everything we see, but in any case that's where people get to.
So actually, on the contrary, average people DO want to be informed of historically accurate things... and be entertained at the same time!
Yes indeed the the masses need to learn more...
I would also think these were not just excuses if bloody they were ubiquitous. They are not, so they are just excuses. For example, backscabbards are mentioned. BUT we often see side scabbards in productions. So the talk about backscabbards being about solving the "issue" of side scabbards becomes just a bloody excuse for the poor ability of those involved in the production.
Just have to say that i'm just as equally awestruck every time i see that 1 sec intro of yours. There are just so many things condensed down to the essentials. Shape, colour, speed, work, tools, makeing and all focused down and superimposed on your 4 quarters logotype. Its like a koan in video form. Just great work.
Whoever did it... its genius.
I wish we lived in a world where you could go to the movies with your mates and watch 1.5 hours of Corinthian pillars in Ancient Greece.
Actually, I just wish we lived in a world where you could go to the movies with your mates at all :(
Big oof
At least you ppl still have drive-ins. My country has zero such cinemas. So chances of going to a new movie would be like earliest next year. Might as well gather at the home of the guy with the best sound systems and biggest screen.
That would just be Ionic...
That would be a blockbuster hit film in the universe of "The Invention of Lying".
What really annoys me is when the chain mail is a sweater with silver paint.
the worst ever, for me was that shithouse movie First Knight. they had stupid blue skivvies with little square plates stuck on them :D
First Knight was such crap on other levels that I don't even remember the armor :-) It's amazing how bad a movie can be despite a whole host of awesome actors.
Heard of "steel wool"? I don't see the problem... :)
That's a bad habit film picked up from theatre. Theatre costumes need to look good and convincing from 20 or 30 feet away. From that distance, painted string does look like mail.
And what annoys me is when people allways say chain mail.. Its called mail. Not chain mail.
I remember myself and the other fight guy being asked to use epees for fighting a British Civil War sequence. We refused because it was for a Son e Lumiere, which is played out mostly in the dark. You couldn’t see where the tips of the swords were. It would only have taken one of us to be slightly out of step for the scene to get very real, very quickly. In the end we used very plain, and blunt, swords which sounded great when bashed together, could be easily filed back to take the burrs out and wouldn’t have costed much to replace if they became unusable. Would the other swords have looked more authentic? Perhaps. But our choice was safety over appearance and nobody in the audiences even noticed.
Well informed, factual, properly reasoned behind the scenes look at peoples pet peeve.
Absolutely unacceptable content for TH-cam 😆
"Peasants are always dull. They're not bright."
Wait a minute ... oh, he's talking about the color scheme! Isn't he?
No it an't
I got more annoyed when poor down trotten peasants toiling in the mud are all immaculately clean.
@@TurinTuramber u got mud on ur face!!!!!u big disgrace!!
@@TurinTuramber Exactly! Especially when(in Britain at least) peasant folk had only two baths in their lives..one at birth and one at death...
@@olsim1730 this isn't true lol
I love that this very knowledgeable man, who actually makes accurate reproductions.. somewhat involved in the movie making process...just told off every pedantic, know it all, in a language they'll all understand.
I watched it all, and I still feel pretty pedantic. I buy the part about points on swords. But the rest of it...
To me, it's all about the "feel" that the movie is going for. If it's a "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" style flick, then by all means let the swords "schwiiiinnngg" and have armor be worthless and let people somersault and dance around with their backs to the enemy and observe all the other tropes established for that genre. But if the movie tries tell me with a straight face that it represents a period, then I expect to be taken into that world. Surprise me. Wow me. Don't be afraid to educate me. Maybe I will even see something I haven't seen before.
If some things don't look "cool" to modern sensibilities, but are clearly treated as such in 'verse, wouldn't that just be a way to further tell us that we're not in Kansas anymore?
Cinematographers suddenly don't wanna take any excuse to play around with colors on film now? How did that happen?
Surely the problem of differentiating the two sides was the same for the actual fighters back in the day (and a damn site more important)? What solutions did _they_ have to that problem? And what do I need to care if actors are expensive? Bits of ornaments and heraldry on people's gear wasn't uncommon at all, so why would a proper helmet automatically mean we can't tell A from B? How much of this move is going to be spent on the actual cavalry charge anyway? Aren't limits supposed to be overcome in interesting ways, not just ignored? (and does it make me a bad person if I didn't even notice that the color difference on fletching was supposed to be something systematic?)
Why do the heroes need "swords with built in extra oomph" if they wouldn't have had that for the fighting style their gear is otherwise supposed to portray? Aren't limits supposed to be overcome in interesting ways, not just ignored?
If scabbards created so many problems when running around, how was that dealt with by the actual people carrying them? If equipment is found to be so impractical to walk around in as to be hazardous, how was that dealt with by the people using that? Aren't limits supposed to be overcome in interesting ways, not just ignored?
I guess what I'm saying is this: The "rule of cool" only works when "cool" isn't just "stupid".
(Oh and btw... I think village blacksmiths would make wargear when the occasion called for it, at least if the mass grave on Gotland is to be believed)
I as a fan of movies would love to see:
1. Knights fighting with helmets on. (maybe they don't speak when they fight? They can do the talking before and after the actual fight.)
2. Scabbards (and other items and clothing) that have some color to them. I'm sick of all the fantasy/medieval movies with only gray and brown.
3. Single handed swords and shields.
4. Less leather. (Its not as cool as movie makers think)
Hollywood is just scared of trying anything different from the norm.
The King on Netflix tried something different. Imo it worked a charm.
@@LucifersLandLord not amazing in terms of "trying something different" but certainly not close to the worst. As a movie it's phenomenal, but historically speaking it's definitely not amazing. It's like they just read some critical comments on a fantasy medieval youtube video and picked out the most prominent criticisms then made sure to give a quick nod to them.
For example the duel near the beginning of the movie, where two stumbling knights slashed their swords at eachother for a bit was far from sensical, however they made sure they grappled and used daggers at the end. Armored opponents would be taken down using daggers in CQB. Other than that, there wasn't much to go on.
The whole movie had a drab appearance, which while that is a result of the style they chose (and it worked great) it isn't really how you would want to go for a historical feeling movie. The Agincourt battle scene showed men at arms getting slaughtered by longbow arrows through plate armor. The whole battle was a giant pool of disorganized knights breaking off into one on one duels practically giving up on any sort of formation in the first second. Henry V's armor was very wonky and did not fit well. Henry V, the king, immediately ditched all his armor and more specifically his helmet and it all being conveniently explained away (like a king is going to rely solely on maille and a cuirass in the age of near full plate). Archers shot straight up in the air and rained their arrows on top of their enemies (which by all accounts did not happen). And the extras generally had really shitty armor.
Basically most of the movie does fall victim to common medieval misconceptions and movie tropes. However, while there is alot to criticize historically about the movie, there is much to praise. It is certainly a very good movie, and it's historical shortcomings aren't overly prevalent enough to take away from the entertainment value. (Besides maybe the archer thing).
WH40k 5 Part series on youtube, Astartes, shows helmet work in cinematics.
well here is the thing, making movies costs serious money. Are you gonna risk that on something that might not work ? Or use the route you know does work ? Especially if the new route, even if it does work, might not make a huge difference. It is risk versus reward.
Have you watched The King on Netflix? I thought they had some great knights fights..
I get this way with things like knitting, crochet, and spinning in historical films. I get that it just looks like she needs to be doing something industrious with her hands but THAT'S NOT HOW THAT TOOL WORKS AUGH! Thanks for the insightful video. :D
@@parad0xheart They should be more responsible though. Like it or not, people use movies to educate themselves, even if unintentionally.
@@parad0xheart Popular culture used to get away with anything easily for ages, because only isolated individuals among the audience recognized particular flaws. These days one person recognizes a sci-fi engine room as the brewery it is and the wole internet can be made aware overnight.
I think this does call for a change of approach on the filmmakers' part.
"When the last time you went hunting orcs, what was the sword you used?"
LARPers: "Well since you asked...."
- Realistically, a 7.62mm machine gun w/ 1200 rounds of NATO ball ammo! 😄
- Imaginarily, full gothic plate armor w/ sword and shield and I still got beaten by them even though they wore leather jerkins because all I could do is roll 1's!
🤦
Actually, I was the ork.
And I was using a double sword and chain mail.
There is a counterpoint to be made to the "studios have to pander to the masses" argument, which is the existence of trendsetters.
If you take the sci-fi realm for example, movies like Interstellar and The Martian have been celebrated for actually taking the science into consideration.
Now, people may not understand the reason why a black hole looks the way it does in Interstellar (which is actually based in the real physics), but it still looks amazing, because it is done and used right. And such movies can be game-changers for their respective genres.
It may be tricky, but I do believe it is possible to achieve a good deal of historical accuracy while keeping even general audiences entertained and captivated.
One just needs to see to it that those elements that are not self-explanatory to the audience are either so far in the background as to not distract people, or explained through the plot and context.
A good example of this is "Master and Commander", which is an amazing movie that manages a substantial degree of historical accuracy.
Audiences may be initially confused by some story elements, such as teenage boys being officers on the ship.
But you accept them as part of the story pretty quickly, because it's not nessecary to fully understand them in order to follow the story.
Very good point. People in theaters don't "yearn" for it because nobody even tries. They come up with an excuse and stick to it. And it's really sad when the event itself is already amazing in the first place.
Reminds me of CSI Cyber. They tried to dumb it down for the masses... In the end, it was a show "too complex" for the masses and "stupid, nothing makes sense" for people who actually knew about stuff.
@skywyze I can't speakwith authority on the matter, and I deliberately only pointed to the depiction of the black hole as an example, since I've seen other sources refer to it as more accurate to science than anything else seen on film. Hence the phrase "taking (...) into consideration". Wether it's accurate or not isn't for me to descide.
@@migueeeelet An uncanny valley of accuracy if you will.
I think there are few things that take me out of the experience of watching a movie than realising that the moviemakers think their audience is dumb.
@@rockyblacksmith Entertainment should be made to be entertaining, but not stupid. You can simplify and streamline, but don't overdo it. It'd be like if Burger King suddenly called it's salads "gourmet" or some sophisticated shit.
Always found the complete removal of colour from movie history interesting, as per your flowery scabbard - first lesson was the room of heads in the Vatican, heads from now marble white statues (removed by the catholics in the cultural cleansing), but still painted in lurid colours, as they were in the day - Apollo's big blue cartoon eyes stick in my memory. I have read the interior of Castles were festooned in colour, yet Hollywood has them as bare stone, as they are now, as ruins. Would love to see just a few shows/films do something 100% accurately, just so we could experience the true culture shock of history. Thanks for the video.
Many cathedrals, too, were wildly colored and painted before many of the "puritan" style movements in later centuries. It's such a funny thing we're missing out on. :)
@@LayneBenofsky Visit Stirling Castle and see the restored Stirling heads for a great example.
The ancient Greek iconic white marble buildings. Not so much. Scientific analysis has recently discovered microscopic paint samples in the stone. They were wildly colored in primary colors. So were the clothing worn by the Greeks. No white togas at all.
Grahame Nicholson - Yep, the Elgin Marbles. All technicolor.
We did see a glimpse of the colour of the Ancient World in that excellent TV series Rome, but such treats are rare.
@Sir Rather Splendid... & unfortunately the reason that AWESOME Show was cut back by 2 or 3 seasons short as it was originally intended to run for by Hirst ( I think 🤔 it was Hirst? maybe not ) Is because it had already had gone WAY over Budget by Millions unfortunately! It's sucks we live in this“NOT interest in History” Century!
I worked in the film industry here in the USA , and the main decision motivation is budget. The movies are getting better with historical accuracy. I love your work and products you sell. Peace William Sterling
Love this video, it leave me with a lot to re-consider.
I can read english pretty well but understand spoken english is very difficult for me. Your way of speaking is so "sharp" and accurate that your words are really easy to understand, thank you for that.
I too recognized that element in his vernacular though english is my native language
LOTR is a proof that it is possible to make good and practical fantasy swords/armor in the movie, pity novadays noone doesnt even try and care about such things
Funnily enough, i dont think that the books describe any form of body armour other than mail. So the movies are, in a certain sense historically inaccurate.
@UCuis6c20HsKgWdIwdMbGmJg platemail is not specifically mentioned, however, plate helmets are so it's really not too much of a stretch. ornate helmets are a big deal through all ages in middle earth.
The books are better! Sorry, had to be that person... though considering Tolkien's probably my favorite author and his works, my most cherished!
@@fireteammichael1777, books are almost always better because the films/tv shows will rarely, if ever, meet the expectations of our imaginations.
Swords and non-plate were good. But stuff like the gondor armour suffers from a lot of the same fantasy design issues as most fantasy plate does. Breastplates go way too low, the shoulders articulate way too loosely, the weird articulated tassets, total lack of throat or lower limb protection, etc.
The Mandalorian proves that protagonists can be helmeted for extended periods. Iron Man showed in 2008 that you could have a helmeted yet expressive face and unmuffled voice (inside the helmet) using the conceit of a virtual camera.
I'd say your second point stands, but the Mandalorian can have protagonists with helmets on for extended periods of time because their actors/actresses aren't your A-list/blockbuster actors/actresses who make $10+ million each film they star in.
@@calebsmith7179 Pedro Pascal isn't famous enough?
@@IngenieurStudios Pedro Pascal is not that famous, and I'm saying that as someone who enjoys his acting. Last time I checked Pedro is making six figures in the shows he's been in and his net worth is two million dollars. Now compare that to someone like Robert Downey Jr. who on average makes $33 million a film and whose networth is $300 million. It speaks for itself.
Not to mention that this helmet design harkens back to Boba Fett whose face is never seen in the original trilogy so we have an iconic character that has popularized the notion of a helmeted protagonist with an obscured face. The design is probably well-known enough that the audience can accept it as a substitute face for a while.
@@calebsmith7179 Lmao where the fuck did you get his net worth is only $2 million. The low end of estimates are at $30 million, and the highest at nearly $50m. Come on now, get the fuck out of here with throwing out false information.
I hunt Orc's with a shotgun. It's not historically accurate, but I'm Amurican
🤣
Do you use buckshot or slugs?
Obviously a European Troll, real Americans hunt Orc’s with those murder machines, those AR-15’s (that stands for Assault Rifle Weapon and 15 bullets a second that the hi capacity clip can spit out from the drum, BTW). 😈
@@kristinfrostlazerbeams light sabers.
Or you hunt everything with a sawed off shotgun, Doomguy approved.
13th warrior was a great film. Among my favorites.
Remember Banderas in the Expendables?
i was hollering on the floor^^
Mine too. I recently bought the DVD to add it to my collection. Great movie.
great movie but not especially known for its historical accuracy
@@tyrionas Well, since "the 13th warrior" is a fictional defictionalized "Beowulf" written by a historical character, they actually had a long road to walk with realism ;)
Tod is triggered by the helmet... I'm triggered by the cavemen: there's so much wrong in them that I don't even know where to begin.
I made two knives for the "Lonesome Dove" series, following exactly the propmaster's directions. The "powers that be" decided they were too "shiny", but did use one in one scene.
That's pretty cool. I would like to what you made
"This is the scabbard I have made, Dated early to mid 14th century" Tod are you immortal? time traveler perhaps?
@@Radhaugo108 No shit, obviously a joke
@@Radhaugo108 r/woooosh
There can be only one.
There can be only one!
*Gathering intensifies*
This was an excellent primer on many of the decisions that go into the historical accuracy (or lack) of a show. I started in Hollywood as a costumer, and worked most of my life in TV & film seeing the kinds of compromises you address here. A pet peeve of mine has always been the lack of helmets, or hats, on main characters in historical shows (up thru the great hat rejection of the 1960s) - but the lowest common denominator of a viewer must be able to distinguish characters in quick shots, and that won't happen if they have a helmet or hat on (just think of the bizarre & torturous lengths characters go to in removing helmets in the middle of combat in a film!). One point you didn't mention is how all the correct historical weapons & armor in the world go right out the window if an A list celebrity 'can't' learn to wield it, or just doesn't 'feel' it represents his or her character - the director will just say 'right, what else do you have?' and now it is on you to solve.
To distinguish a character you can give him a distinguish helmet or shield so that can be easy solved and yes this did happen in combat that William the conqueror removed his helmet to show he was still alive .
The only caveat is when the character is completely distinguishable even when wearing a helmet. You are never going to not know which Avenger Tony Stark is... Or which character is Darth Vader. The trick is to associate the character with the helmet on before we learn who the actor is. Then when we see the distinctive helmet we know who is wearing it. But then they would just get the helmets wrong every time.
Thank you. You answered more questions than were posed in your wonderful video. Brilliant history. 👏👏
For The Last Viking it might've been better to paint crosses on the Saxon shields - not historically accurate either but not as out of place looking as square ones.
Sounds to me like the idea of a dumb director or producer that they had to go with.. The hairs on that show make it unbearable for me, models today don't walk around with hair that pretty and well done, how is this pretty boy in the late migration era pulling that off ? Cut it short or at least make it look bad, it's not like they had shampoo back then ffs.
@@gufassina They had various kinds of soap, and they definitely did wash their hair and comb/brush it.
@@Aconitum_napellus Not enough to look like his hair. Models today don't have hair like that on a daily basis. That's just got out of expensive salon level hair.
The character travels for a week on horseback and has impeccable hair, this is migration era europe, they weren't bathing everyday either.
It's just too jarring for me..
@@gufassina so you don't like all the long hairs in modern military movies either?
@@baysword It depends on the movie and how it looks.
Another thing that annoys me is loose long hair combat, It's one of the worst things you could possibly do, it gets in the way of your vision and doesn't provide any benefit.
Tie it up ffs, you're going into combat, you want things as optimal as you can get, looking cool is not relevant when it could cost your life.
This reminds me of how I'm always making fun of cop shows for those raid scenes where all of the SWAT officers are fully armored, but the heroes go rushing in first with no helmets, even though I know full well this is so that the audience can tell who the heroes are. I think I'm going to keep making fun of movies for getting things wrong even when I know their reasons for it because that's just how I am :P
I get the reasons but I also think that the reasons are stupid. Now if the companies wants to pander to the idiots, sure. But I can also be as aloud and noisy as the masses and try to force the company to pander to my taste.
@@anthonybanderas9930 your right anthony the reasons are stupid and this guy should take a look at the short film knight of hope.
No helmet is not the problem, rushing in first is, it's complex and lethal team work.
“Long bows creek “ holy shit I didn’t realise they added that in........ of cause they do!
I cried almost the whole way through “The Return of the Doric Capitals”
Holy cow, I just had surgery and shouldn’t be laughing so hard!
😅
Common sense really. But embarrassing that many, including myself, never really thought about it.. Great Video.
What's really embarrassing is that most of those are just lame excuses that incompetent and lazy directors and writers come up with.
"The mass of people will be confused if peasants aren't always in artificially bogus drab garb or too many colors on scabbards."
Okay, perhaps creativity comes into play to set the record straight for the mass of people. And entertainment enhanced as well as historical record corrected for the mindless dirty masses.
I know it's hard, and complicated in ways I don't understand. You can hear quite a bit about the process by watching movies with commentary tracks, for example. But I still think they can do better; That there's a lot to be gained from visuals whose meaning goes deeper than surface level, and a world that makes physical sense for the story to happen in, which might help things happen for established reasons instead of arbitrarily.
On the gaudy colours and flower decorations, I would say it is a self fulfilling prophecy:
For fear of the character being perceived unmanly, they are clad and armed dull and colourless.
But the audience always sees serious manly dudes in black and brown, and is conditioned to expect a borefest aesthetic.
I have to say, a decent person who. Ommands respect, can do so in a flowery costume just as well, if he is woth his salt as an actor.
Lutz der Lurch Like Errol Flynn?
I was disappointed to not see the Boltons in mostly pink clothes in GoT. There's Ramsay's flayed.man armour. It would be expensive and time consuming, but really badass.
plus the perception at the time, and thus the expectation of the onlookers, could be drastically different. Showing off how filthy rich you are by having all sorts of exquisite jewellery on you scabbard could have been ultra-manly.
The closest thing I have to an orc hunting sword is a Bowie knife made by Tod Cutler
Clearly a good choice!
I have some Cutlery made by David Bowie. Would that also work?
@@13tuyuti nah, thats for fae and spirits
Underrated thread, we should run all the way down the labyrinth with this one.
@@alexandernewman9735 I have a book full of Brian Froud (the concept artist behind the Dark Crystal and The Labyrinth) artwork!
Every film should have a medic's input, to ensure that all injuries are accompanied by the correct amount of blood .
dunno about anyone else, but the most enjoyable thing about blood splatter in movies for me is how fake it is. Like in some Samurai movies, where off shot a head is cut off, and about forty gallons (US) of blood hits the wall. THAT is funny. Faces of Death style accuracy makes me ill. There is a move called Dead Alive from New Zealand. It was so over the top ridiculous it was the funniest zombie movie I'd ever seen until Dead and Breakfast. I was on a remote job somewhere in the 90's and saw a video for rent in a store that said "Dead Alive Productions" so I rented it without looking at the cover or the back. It was a series of snuff vignettes, of actual people being killed and/or eaten alive by animals. No. Just, no. I LIKE the fake stuff.
@@phillipsofthedriver I think it is Peter Jackson's first film. It is the one with the priest "kicking ass in the name of the lord" and with the dude who strapped the lawnmower to his chest to kill zombies, right?
@@phillipsofthedriver Check out Texas Chainsaw Massacre. My mother is like you, after 50 years in ER, she likes the fake stuff, and Texas Chainsaw had her howling in laughter.
I hate how everyone DIES INSTANTLY when shot anywhere on their body.
Cripes.
In my graphic novels, I mock everything and every one. EX: every time someone's head is chopped off or ripped off....i have their head on the ground, wondering why it takes over 3 minutes for them to die, and how awful it is just being that head on the ground, ha ha.
@@phillipsofthedriver You must like Kill Bill and Django Unchained.
You want to cast an actor that will let you cover his face for an entire film and he will crush it, Tom Hardy is your man. Also Karl Urban. Let those two play medieval knights and it will blow everyone’s mind.
Great video; Thank you. My favorite movie of all time is Excalibur. On the DVD commentary they talk about how they employed an entire army of smiths to make armour and weapons. The reliance on steel costumes adds a lot of weight and authenticity to the movie. Much better than when a movie uses Poly-Urethane.
Love that movie...and to go with the video, the armor is way more advanced for the period it is supposed to be in....but it looks so flipping cool....I am happy they made the choices they did for that movie. The armor and weapons and fight scenes are amazing.
the costumes where aluminium , Adam Savage did a 7 part series where Terry English makes him armour and Excalibur is referenced a lot (he made all the armour). It's well worth the watch
At some point I realized that movies are just fun. Once I realized that, I found I could enjoy almost every movie, no matter how many hundred years the helmet is apparently off by.
If it’s a strictly historical movie, like one actually based on real people and real stories, then I think they should be more accurate. But other than that, it’s just so much easier to not care, and it’s so much more fun.
Perfect
part of the fun is spotting the inaccuracies though. Although it gets boring on very inaccurate films
"Flowers on scabbards" " Interestingly, when we depict ancient China, or ancient Japan, or Arabia we see bright livery, contrasting colors, and beautiful patterning and no one bats an eye. Isn't this on of the MAIN reasons so many people misunderstand the European medieval period as drab, dreary, and primitive and medieval weapons being heavy, cumbersome cudgels little better than marginally sharpened hunks of iron?
The same thing Kinda goes for peasants. We don't depict the ancient Chinese/Japanese/Arabic peasant as stupid or inept. That mostly seems to be reserved for depictions of European peasants. Coincidentally this is how I first came to have interest in medieval Europe. Seeing stupid, dopish peasants contrasted against massive castles which spoke of an intimate knowledge of engineering and physics didn't seem right at all.
Also f*** back scabbards. Seriously, f*** those things.
Wouldn't ork hunting swords be the same thing as people hunting swords?
The key reason why we think of medieval colours as dull is that the colours have faded in time. Same holds for the Roman period. They covered their walls in quite hideous colours back then but the colours have simply faded away so we now think they used to have white walls.
@@Warentester I don't really think so. The vast majority of people have never even seen actual clothing from that time and , if they do, its usually pretty obvious the stuff is faded and aged. The key reason we think of medieval colors as dull is hollywood and the way they depicte the medieval era as dull, gray, and dreary.
your not a big witcher fan i guess xD
Not as dull and quiet as living in The Castle Anthrax
@@Warentester Well one reason for the dark medieval settings where the fact that only nobelmen could aford anything that was colourful. A peasant would not run around in blue, yellow or red cloths back then.
Points well made !!! I worked with the 13thWarrior Props department . Originally they were making a Period looking 9th Century Viking movie . Then different Directors came in and they picked what they thought Looked Good instead of what was Right . . . As you stated, t'is a collaborative effort and not a Historical happening .
One of the worst parts of that movie was watching then grind down a Germanic pattern spatha into a vaguely scimitar looking...thing.
Hence the 17th century breastplate on one Viking sharing a screen with the Roman gladiator's helmet worn by another one.
13th Warrior is a beautiful movie and one of my favorites!
That is a pretty knife, when you die, can I give it to my daughter ?
The movie is great, the swords and outfits more than terrible. Vikings didn't have double handed swords. The swords didn't weigh over 1kg at the heaviest. So it could've never been too heavy for the little Arab. Vikings didn't wear hides and leather vambraces. A viking wore leg windings for example, which could be quite colourful. Even pink or lilac. Moviemakers have the duty to educate their audience. The real outfits are not more expensive than the crap they are wearing instead. So that can't be an argument.
This has been enlightening. Thank you for giving us some of your insight into this, it actually helps me be able to ignore these issues cause I can just lay blame at them being practical instead of ignorant.
I can see the love you have for you work and historical accuracy in your hands.
These are hands of a real blacksmith.
I would go to see a "block buster of Corinthian columns" in a blink of an eye!
"This is a scabbard that i made. Dated early to mid 14th century."
I did not know you are that old. Impressive.
@Thomas King A genuinely stupid comment. Why did you bother?
You know what he meant.
@Thomas King Sometimes it's just to get people with a stick up their ass to respond just as you did.
@@jguenther3049 IT WAS A JOKE WHOOSH
@Thomas King r/ woosh
Great job explaining how reality gets in the way of realism.
I love this no nonsense, no bs, video. You are explaining the realities of the industry, and why choices are made. It just comes down to the bottom line, making money, for the studio. People can get their medieval equivalency of under woos all in a twist, but if it does not work in the movie, no matter how accurate it may be, it has to go, or be changed. I wish more videos like this came out, to shut people up.
I'd challenge the idea of bascinet helm always being worn visor down.
At least in the logic, to a degree, some records that refer to wounds, scars on the face being common.
From what I've seen and can remember, the bascinet was worn visor down when in the charge, cavalry or on foot, towards the line. When archery was being actively faced, it was down. Why? Arrows to the face aren't fun and can be lethal.
On the other hand, when it was close combat, when it was down to the swords, shields, pollhammers and pollaxs, then the visor went up. Why? You've got better visibility, better air flow, for long term fighting. Both of which matter when it's two lines that have hit each other at some force. It's easy to get around the back of another fighter, combatant. The more visibility you have, the harder that becomes.
It's also the reason I think a lot of professional men-at-arms fought in groups, pairs, at a minimum. One guy to watch your back, while you watch his.
From memory a certain king was famously wounded with an arrow while his visor was up. A particular king who was at Agincourt to be precise.
It's not a great argument, but I think it holds water.
As for back scabbards, sheaths, they did exist. Celt warriors in wagons wore them that way, so it wouldn't interfere with controlling the horse, chariot etc etc. So...... context matters if I channel a little Matt Easton here.
Yeah its plausable. Check out eastons video with toby capwell on this very subject. I believe they have a 3 part series on armour, helms and the whole arrow and armour debate. Its quite good. i like when those 2 get together.
@@opwards Not the only one, if we're talking about the same series. Watched that through again myself fairly recently.
@@LionofCaliban yeah its pretty good. You kinda cant argue with capwell i reckon on all this stuff. He lives and breathes it as a scolar and as a practicing knight knows these things from a practical level that most people alive can only speculate on. So if he says destrias were unicorns. Then i believe it lol
@@opwards At some point with archaeology, you just have to get out and try stuff out.
Easy to argue from a book, harder to argue when you've got the thing in your hands and things and they're not making sense.
@@LionofCaliban absolutely :)
16:30 When I go orc hunting, I carry an enchanted flanged mace, a heater shield, and a Rondel dagger. I would also use a bow, but my dexterity is only a 9, so I usually miss anything with an AC above 12 or so.
They have a high reduction so blunt weapons are a good bet, but you are better off with heavy armour and a 2h tetsubou for the 2k3 damage, reduction ignore whilst keeping the knockdown chance.
Bow build would be good with high reflexes, so your TN would be high but your DPR would be low due to the high reduction and low arrow damage, at least if the orcs wore armour. This could reduce your chance of getting tainted, but you might get one turn ko'd.
Alternatively go magic, because magic is cheating.
I generally carry an AR-15. AR-10 if I'm expecting Uruk-hai.
I carry a monomolecular sword while riding my baneblade
I sell all of the weapons listed in this thread. I make out like a bandit, and avoid battlefields like the plague. Im an aging klutz!
The issue I've got is that the closer to the present a film is set we get a very different standard of authenticity- there are errors in films like Saving Private Ryan but these are so minor in comparison to things like Kingdom of Heaven; small details are wrong in SPR but if you feature a mock up tank they at least try and make it LOOK like a WW2 tank- whereas films like KOH place half of Saladin's forces in 16th/17th Ottoman gear to make them 'distinct'. Personally I agree that there are compromises that need to be made for action and cinematography, but the current compromises are by and large unnecessary and due to the perceived "industry standard practice".
the biggest flaw in SPR is that they pretend that such a rescue would actually happen.
@@philosophpascal - yeah but at least it looks fairly realistic and is reasonably authentic. It is a fictional story but at least the period visuals are decent.
What I remember about that film is that the opening scenes of the beach landing are awesome, but completely irrelevant to the rest of the film.
Remember, though, that if something happened in the 16TH or 17TH century, everyone from that time period is centuries dead. Everything humans know we dug up studying history. Compare that to WW2. We forget that survivors of those battles are still around. So if you depict a WW2 battle, it is still quite possible that some of the actual people who actually served and fought in that particular battle are still alive today, and can provide first hand accounts of it. Speaking of that, they can tell stories of that directly to us younger generations, so we can get that information direct. Not true for 17TH century battles.
Sure, your average moviegoer isn't an expert on anything they're seeing, but of course the standard gets higher as you get closer to the present because the closer you get to the present, the more the audience knows about how things were.
And because of that, perceptions also change. We tend to romanticize things and such from times that are longer ago, and so people's expectations are based less on reality and more on fiction as you go further back.
@@BologneyT To add to your point, it doesnt help that the ancients themselves cared less for historical accuracy when handing down tales of their battles than they did for mythyfying their kings and war heroes. After all, excalibur being a magical sword is far more entertaining as a tavern story than admitting that it was probably just made of really high quality steel and probably cost the king a small fortune to have it forged
Thank you, Tod. That was the most intelligent discussion of Hollywood compromises I've heard.
I used to be a manufacturing engineer and you have no idea (or maybe you do) how often I hear complaints about the problems or inadequacies of this or that consumer item - from people who have no clue how things are made and who wouldn't pay the cost of perfection if it were offered. There are so many compromises between an idea and a product that the buying public is not privy to. And that is similar to your demonstration of the many compromises between historical accuracy and a filmable and enjoyable movie.
When I saw this, i originally thought it was just going to be someone talking bad about props used in movies. I'm really glad it was a well spoken explanation of why the props used are used. I have done some video production, and even in the small things I did, there were things you needed to worry about like this.
16:16 a chainsword, is that a trick question?
Well, I carry a power sword now, but for the longest time I used a chainsword.
For the Emperor!
@@ScottKenny1978 Powerswords arent really all that great against orcs due to their great toughness, a powerfist on the other hand...
@@Daniel-rd6st oh, absolutely. I haven't faced orks in years, though.
@@ScottKenny1978 Neither have i, ever since i left 40k with 5th ed. and dark herasy got discontinued :(
Though i still do have my Warhammer Fantasy Orc army, which i sadly stopped playing because age of sigmar happened *sigh*
This guy makes good points and presents it in a very understandable way. I learned a bit from the video. Good job. That being said, Robin Hood with a recurve is inexcusable.
Very eye-opening. Which makes me further appreciate the craftsmanship and nuances that are involved in these types of projects.
I just thought I'd answer your rhetorical question on orc hunting. Last time I went was about a week ago and we used spears , axes, and long knives and fire. Swords are for dueling noble men. LOL
:D
I prefer my trusty wand of fireballs when hunting orcs
Thank you so much for making this video, I worked in the SFX-industry for 15 years, and everything you said in this video is spot on! Now, where I worked we primarily did stunt weapons; everything from safe remakes of historical weapons, or stunt versions of some real steel weapons someone had been contracted to make, to various improvised weapons. We made everything from bits of furniture, construction materials like planks, lead pipes, and tools. We made safe-to-slam-an-A actors-face-into steel bars for some prison door scene, and barb wire, baseball bats, trench clubs, and a bunch more I've already forgotten. We made bricks, rocks, broken off branches, a paving slab, and even a baked potato once. But, to be honest, the job I'm most proud of was when I "cracked the code" to making a bamboo cane you could beat the shit out of someone's bare ass with, without leaving as much as a red mark. That was probably my most memorable moment. That, and figuring out how to make realistic barb wire from rubber, without casting. Did learn quite a bit about barb wire in the process, but that's usually how it goes when you dive headfirst into a subject, isn't it...:-D
Another thing I learned, is that the stunt guys are usually easy to explain that "this stunt prop is only going to stand up to a certain amount of abuse", they got it right away, they are used to make something look a hell of a lot more violent and dangerous than it actually is, in much the same way a trench club built by an SFX-guy, isn't going to cause any damage at all, but won't last as long as a real one would. We totally understood each other. Actors though, that's a different story...:-D
Anyways, I'm rambling, thanks for sharing your knowledge, I've had the same "complications" as I'm sure you've had at some point, trying to convince yourself that the show must go on, even though what you're asked to do is totally against what you know as historical facts, and can barely be passed off as realistic. We might occasionally know better, but we're not always the ones making the decisions, and that's just the way it is - the only ones that will notice, are the other nerds that'll hate the inaccuracies as much as we do.;-)
I love the 13th warrior, mostly because I went into it thinking "This is going to be like if you told Beowulf through the lens of Die Hard." and it was!
Hey :) Thank you so much for enlightening us! I assumed that some of the "inaccurateness" (...that I actually notice, I am by no means an expert on that) partially comes from the requirements you mentioned like seeing the actors faces, or being able to move properly; and some of it maybe stems from bad research, or lack of interest. But it is good to know that advisors are mostly asked to help make movies and series as accurate as possible. I am not bothered when I see things that seem "historically wrong". But it is good to know more about the various reasons behind the conscious decision, or even necessity to do things a certain way.
A wonderfully level-headed and pragmatic approach to, and explanation of, the subject matter. Well done!=)
I enjoy how you look like the smithy, but speak like the scholar
That moment you start mix and matching your DnD character
Hands of a dwarf and mind of an elf!
@@balrok9959 Now that's just racial stereotyping ;)
@Afqwa You raise a good point. Though I'd wager that while they were highly skilled at making weapons and armors -being topshelf artisans, they would not be able to read/write and do higher math.
The question then becomes 'what defines a scholar?'
@Afqwa lol, fair. it wouldn't be an exaggeration that im going off of skits like that :D
>Back scabbards.
The pet hate of every Scottish re-enactor who has seen Braveheart.
I'd think every thing about that movie would be
@@cdreid99999 true.
Hey, where else would you carry a big ol great sword? Certainly not on the belt since it's too long. The back is the only logical place to carry it if you wanna keep your hands free.
I don't see a problem with back scabbard when having TRANSPORT-concept in mind.
People say, "that a warrior would carry his sword on the shoulder". Agree with that - but ONLY when in combat situation/ danger proximity.
But if you tell me they were carrying their big focking swords on their shoulder, 12-16 h a day ; or marching with it on the shoulder...I won't believe it !
And anyway, a warrior wouldn't have/ keep only 1 weapon. When his "main weapon" would be on his back, probably a shortsword would hang on his belt. Daggers too.
So NO REAL NEED to draw his weapon from his back scabbard, if shit got real.
PS : I would find it much easier on horseback to draw the sword from the back, especially when you are leaning forward while riding/ galloping.
@9600GTMAN Of course you can draw from a back scabbard. Haven't you watched Shadiversity's back scabbard videos?
I love your attitude and your stance on this whole issue. Pragmatic, realistic and very well-versed. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Would love to have a Hollywood classic fantasy film protagonist, grey drab clothing, excessive leather, and drop him in an otherwise accurate Medieval setting. The whole movie's perspective is from the Medieval folk's viewpoint remarking on the strangeness of the classic Hollywood person's views and actions.
Pretty sure there was a Twilight Zone episode where a pampered actor who plays a cowboy sheriff dressed in fancy clothes who always wins his gunfights and gets the girl is suddenly dropped into an accurate western town and has to fight a real-life desperado/badass. If I remember right, it didn't go well for the fake lawman!
"getting off our high horse" is really true... I was on Quora for a while and I was annoyed by how many people seemed to think they were authorities on some subject just because they had a friend of a friend who talked about it once
The 13th warrior was the first movie I ever bought with my own money on VHS, classic!
Great video, cheers :-)
The book it's based on Eaters of the Dead by Michael Crichton is great as well. If you've never read it, I highly recommend it.
@@DeadnCold Oh, thanks mate. I haven't and I definitely will!
Also, it was based on Bawolf
I always imagined the gladiator’s helmet in 13th Warrior was some antique that he bought in Byzantium that originally came from Rome or even Egypt (ideally somewhere dry) that sat in someone’s storeroom or was someone’s decoration for 6 or 700 years. It’s unlikely, but not impossible.
I understand what you're saying, and your comments are valuable... but I'll always hate back scabbards.
Shad M. Brooks of Shadiversity channel had shown that you can make back scabbard for longsword work - but it looks quite different from an ordinary side scabbard used on back.
Historically, from what I know, there were back half-scabbards for single-handed swords (in one region, in one time range).
I don't really have a problem with them in non-combat situations. In combat, or in situations where combat is likely, they don't really belong, but if the character is just toodling along in a safe area and is unlikely to need to draw the sword in a hurry, then they're fine.
The can be made to release as well, so that you wind up with the sword and scabbard in your hand. Then you can draw the sword and toss the scabbard aside, rather than trying to get some forced and very clumsy over-the-shoulder draw.
@ That thing of his, like most of his guff, is ludicrous. I'd like to see how may of the swords fell out on a march or a ride. Yes, I've seen the vid.
Shad should talk to some HEMA people about what's involved in a medieval melee
@@jameslawrie3807 First, back scabbard in the form of half scabbard was done historically (though it is very rare). Shad idea is in my opinion better, though more time and material consuming; it is certainly not worse at retaining the sword.
Second, the problem with back scabbard might not be with retaining the sword, or speed and predictability of drawing (and being quite vulnerable while drawing, opening for armpit thrust), but lack of weather proofing - if you want to be able to draw the longsword without no-clip you need opening in scabbard.
Back scabbard in some media are inevitable -- it can be a viable way to transport a large weapon over long distances on foot, and a lot of these films depict individuals, often on their personal undertakings, and they need weapons for fights to happen. Films and video games need this so these heroes won't be constrained to luggage trains, to better facilitate interesting and personal story-telling. Also while Big Fucking Swords are cool, butting that in a scabbard that hang by your hip is even sillier.
"Alright! We'll call it a draw."
Most historically accurate film ever.
I absolutely love this video. Bar none, the most informative video I have seen on this topic. Thank you for explaining it in such a simple manner. Keep up the good work :)
Thank you for the elucidation. I am not that level of historian by any stretch of the imagination, but often know when something is not quite correct. You taught me the why of it today.