"Anyone Ever Got it Right?" Topic

I just saw Ridley Scott's Exodus last night and whilst it's akin to criticising technical shortcomings on any fantasy fiction film, the attention to historical military technology was just absent.
Worst offences for me were stirrups and various forms of mounted warfare.
BUT, has any movie or television show (can't think of many set in ancient times) ever bothered to lift their game? If we accept that the latest round of Sword and Sandal epics (or Stirrups and Steel in this latest case) movie makers with enormous budgets have been at it since Scott released Gladiator in 2000 but has anyone bothered to take the modest step in listening to their technical advisors, horse-masters and get experimental archeologists to hand over their designs to the props department?

Flail away, so long as you realize you're "preaching to the choir" and Hollyweird don't care.

If the "History (sic) Channel" can't be bothered to get it right why should the people that are "just making movies"?

For all it's faults as a film, didn't Stone's Alexander nail it for the Persians and Macedonians? No Stirrups, all the kit looked right, and I'm pretty sure they did an acceptable job with the drill and tactics. They may have even got the Indians right, but that's outside my ken.

Master and commander seemed very good indeed

martin

I'll second Alexander. Not only did they do a good job with most of the kit but they really nailed the characters for the most part too.

The short-lived series Roar with Heath Ledger did put in an effort to portray the look of 4th century Romans somewhat correctly. I remember one scene in which one of the heroes knocked a mounted trooper off his horse and it showed the Roman using a four-horned saddle. The story line was pure fantasy, showing a Roman invasion of Ireland but I think it was inspired by an archaeological find suggested there may have been a Roman colony in Ireland.

Yes, Alexander did a good job.

Exodus was spot on don't know what you guys are talking about….almost like Ridley was there with his own camcorder.

The OFM and I agree, Excalibur was practically a documentary.

My brother worked in Hollywood for years and I asked him about this once – why not use the "right" gear?

Because we're making entertainment, not documentaries. We want a look, a feel, a style. Heck, they don't even bother to write stories that make any sense – and you think they'll worry about "historical accuracy?"

Cool tanks will sell tickets. Getting it right won't.

Oh yeah Excalibur….that was like done by the Time Team.

The movie "Timeline" was dead on accurate. A time travel movie that had a group of Archaeologists end up in the middle of the Hundred Years War.
Also, while not featuring accurate kit, the Brad Pitt "Troy" really did a decent job of simulating the clash of shield walls/Phalanxes.

Ironically, it would sometimes be less expensive to use more accurate equipment, and the historical armies tend to look much cooler than their Hollywood counterparts.

There are some historical armies that might look better than the Hollywood counterparts but cooler or not they may not be expressing the right feel.

Look at 300. We have all these bad ass Spartan Warriors marching around and fighting all the time. They are tough as nails. Probably if you tried to pound a nail into them you'd just have a Spartan-impregnated nail for your troubles.

So these dudes are threatened by this alien menace. These Persians are so bad ass that they are making the Spartans think twice about fighting them. We hear about this for the first third or so of the movie.

Then when these terror-inducing Persians show up they are wearing . . . pajamas? And carrying wicker shields?

It just wouldn't work. You need to have them looking tough and exotic. You need them to be going to war with elephants and rhinos and amputee-mutants.

Anything else just isn't going to have much impact on much of the intended audience.

Pictors is right

That said I will agree that in ancients Alexander did a great job.If you are only looking at movies that is the only one I think.

Their perception is that the audience don't know or care. I worked on a "documentary" about King Arthur once(with Richard Harris) and we pointed out that Atrthur wouldn't have worn a 14th Century Barbute but the producers didn't care because it "looked cool"… and they made me wear a stick on beard!

Crassus's Legions in Spartacus were pretty good.

That's only because Kubrick was dragged into it, and he was brilliant at anything.

Since we started off by slamming Ridley Scott, I'm surprised nobody mentioned Kingdom of Heaven. Looking strictly at the armor, weapons, and costumes, they did a great job. I can't speak to the tactics, and of course the history and storyline were "meh", but it they did get the kit right.

"Look at 300. We have all these bad ass Spartan Warriors marching around and fighting all the time. They are tough as nails. Probably if you tried to pound a nail into them you'd just have a Spartan-impregnated nail for your troubles."

Nails _impregnated_ by Spartans? I heard their women were tough, but sheesh! Well, if the nail's litter is big, you can sell the little brads off to make more armor!

Mmm, I enjoyed the Frankish pikemen a lot. And the massed Ayyubid siege towers.

I though Judge Dredd was quite historical until he took of his helmet.
I am the laaawww! :+)

Seriously agree Master and Commander very well done, Alexander was OK except how they cast one of the worlds most ugly and least talented to play Alex I'll never know. As for Ridely he's in his salad years and its about the buck for him as he doesn't (in his mind) have to produce/prove any thing even slightly decent anymore.