"Movie Armour Awesomeness Contest!" Topic

There has been in this forum some debate recently about the merits of armour in fantasy media. As I am a proactive* sort of person, I submit for your approval …

The Movie Armour Awesomeness Contest!

The judging will be based on three categories of competition:

I. Beauty – Is the armour visually interesting? Does it suit the characters and setting?

II. Talent – Would the armour be practical to wear? Does it offer a reasonable degree of protection?

III. Swimsuit – Does it cover more than one?

Please submit your candidates below; entries will be judged by the usual herd of cats. Should the cats eventually declare a winner, a prize may be awarded (or, it may not – at least not by me). Thank you for your participation.

Ron

*Proactive isn't a real word; please, don't use it.

Credits: I. Excalibur – dir. John Boorman, 1981; II. El Cid – dir. Anthony Mann, 1961; III. Red Sonja – dir. Richard Fleischer, 1985

Proactive isn't a real word; please, don't use it.

Yes it is:

1) It is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

2) It has been in use since at least the 1930's.

3) You can use it in Scrabble.

And your first category is partly wrong. While the armor in question is visually interesting it clearly does not "…suit the characters and setting". The armor shown clearly does not "suit the setting", totally wrong for the time period during which Arthur was supposed to exist.

That part of the definition clearly belongs in Category III.

I nominate Ladyhawke and Flesh and Blood----just because Rutger Hauer wears armor well.

And your first category is partly wrong.

No, the picture is wrong – only it isn't. I continue to be amazed by the number of people who think that John Boorman had any intention of making an historically accurate film about King Arthur. He was all about the legend, baby. Let the category stand; on with the show.

Ron

Well, good to see you are keeping an open mind to input.

The Warlord. Heston, Boone, Villagers and Vikings. 'nuff said.

Rob

Category I-Loved the armo(u)r in Henry V (Ken Branaugh version)

Category II-Patrick McGoohan's mail and helmet in Braveheart

Category III-don't understand the category question.

The armor from Beowulf and Grendel.

Nails the time period.
Interesting, protective and it does cover the body if that is what you meant by III.

Gee, TberryWhatevernumber, sorry if the post offended your sensibilities. The Nappys board is that-a-way.

Excalibur is supposed to be Generic, Rule-of-Cool medieval. You could put everything anyone REALLY knows of Historical Arthur in a thimble. Even the educated guesses only get you so far. It's not like there's not centuries-old literature that plays plenty fast and loose with "historical accuracy", as if they knew or cared what that even was. Every knucklehead kid who used Boorman's movie as a substitute for reading up on post-Romo-Britain in his history text has long since earned that well-deserved 'F'. Does the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise cause you to have to take nitro tablets?

Every single costume in Lady Hawk looked like it still had the "Old Navy Faux Medieval Collection" tag still on it. Even Broderick's "coarse-spun" robe looked nicer than what I'm wearing now. Very distracting.

Excalibur kit looked swell. Henry V, too, save some anachronism. Like, why the Big Man himself is the only one WITHOUT platemail. Oh well, white-armored Brian Blessed, braining guys with a mace is really good enough.

I'd forgotten how hot Gwen was!

Although the movie was a farcical comedy (which I thoroughly enjoyed, by the way) the armor used by Ledger's character looked like it could have been used in the Middle Ages.

Jim

The bear armour from "The Golden Compass" gets bonus points for being on BEARS.

Gee, TberryWhatevernumber, sorry if the post offended your sensibilities. The Nappys board is that-a-way.

The post didn't offend me. Though to me having Arthur and his knights in full plate armor is like using Abrams tanks to represent British Mark IVs in a movie about the 1917 Battle of Cambrai.

And if you read my post carefully my disagreement was on "Does the armor suit the setting." I did find the armor "visually interesting".

Sorry having an opinion of my own seems to offended you.

And I have no interest in diapers.

@TBR, I always thought that was a little annoying too, that the English in Henry V fought w/o helmets, but the French in pig-faced bascinets looked great!

@Col Cambell-I almost mentioned 'A Knight's Tale'. Fun, funny romp of a movie. It didn't bother me so much that the town guard wore conquistador helmets, when the soundtrack is rock hits of the '70's.

Oh, yeah, and the goblin armour from "Labyrinth".

> when the soundtrack is rock hits of the '70's.

That was for the older knights, the younger ones like more contemporary music. At least that is what the commentary track says.

I'm far from an expert in armor but I always enjoyed "Excalibur". Okay, everyone wore their armor all the time but lets face it, as a representation of the Arthurian legend it was cool. Boorman was basing his movie loosely on "Le Mort d'Arthur" not on some "historical" Arthur. Let's face it, the most accurate you could probably get to a "historical" representation of the Arthurian legend would actually be the 2nd half of the XIIth Century, when Eleanor of Aquitaine became a patroness of the legends.

The post didn't offend me. Though to me having Arthur and his knights in full plate armor is like using Abrams tanks to represent British Mark IVs in a movie about the 1917 Battle of Cambrai.

But I assume a movie about Cambrai would try and be historic. While Excalibur is a fantacy movie based on a high medieval story.

So thats aple and oranges.

And while I was the one that made the thread used in the first post, I do not have a problem with the excalibur armor, excalibur is no more historic then lord of the rings. And what I had a problem with in game of thrones was that the armor was useless it does not protect vital parts, it's basicly stormtrooper armor, looks great, but won't protect you from teddy bears with rocks.

The excalibur armor actualy seems to be a funcitonal armor, it protects most vital parts. Hell you even see i the moive how the shrug of most hits. And how in some sceenes, they littarly have to pry of parts of the armor to get to the soft moshy parts.

The excalibur armor actualy seems to be a funcitonal armor,

No argument with any of that. But if that is your argument wouldn't if fit more into Cat-II than Cat-I.

So thats aple and oranges.

Cam we just agree to disagree? And stop hijacking this thread?

I will say that it has been pointed out to me that the original author Sir Thomas Malory followed the 15th-century method of story-telling that had historical characters behave in a contemporary (15th-century) manner. This is used to explain the use of full-plate armor, stirrups and non-period weaponry.

I can't believe this isn't mentioned yet, but …

Winner of Category I, II, III. Next contest, please.

…And the thread dies horribly. Thanks, guys.

Ron

RE Henry V: I actually liked the armor in the 1944 version better (though not the round shields) Sir Lawrence looked much better than Kevin (bowl haircut and period correct armor).

Re King Arthur: an historical Arthur would be a very short movie as almost nothing is known about him (and he may not have even existed).

But Mallory and the legend of Arthur do exist and are very 15th Century – so armor correct for what it intends to depict.

TomT