Allgemeines > Bücher, Filme, Publikationen
historische filme im aktuellen fernsehprogramm
Axebreaker:
Who do you disagree with,me or Angrist?
I do have a few comments on your view.
Troy
--- Zitat ---but not tens of thousands
--- Ende Zitat ---
The film did not show tens of thousands,but rather thousands on each side. :whistling: This is possible and it showed them fighting shield to shield.This is also more then likely.The shields were large and in a rectangle,which many historians believe is correct for this time.Their armour we both agree was way off,but did look good at least.Nobody would want to see them in pyrimid armour even if it was more accurate.How the chariots fought is not well understood.They were probely to light to act as heavy chariots.More then likely they fought on the side in personal duels and peppering the infantry on the flanks.Of course the king didn\'t control his troops through voice,but probely a horn or something.Hollywood changed some things for drama and looks but did capture a feel for the story and try to give it a somewhat realistic account from Homer.(If that\'s even possible)
300 from a historical point of view was a complete joke. :puke: This movie was an action adventure movie and nothng else,and when viewed this way is quite fun.The special effects and combat was fun to watch,plus it had a few good one liners.From a historical point of view I was very disappointed and tried not to laugh.I don\'t think there is a need to point out what they got wrong here.
Gladiator
If the romens had time to prepare,scorpions were used.If they were used as mass artillery I can\'t say,but sure did look good in the film.As for the stone throwers(Onergers?)I do think they were only used in sieges if at all.Do you think when men charge that they can stay in a perfect line?If you do a sudden rush,it will be somewhat disorganized which is what is shown in the film.You can quick step and keep a pretty good straight line,but not a rush.
What happened in the arena may or may not have happened.You make it sound it was a rigid affair in the arena.They did alot of crazy things in there.Did you know they flooded an arena and had a mock ship battle at one time!The arena was the romens movie theater.They were always trying to think of new ways to impress the crowd.The equipment was pretty much standardized,but to say they would not get bored of seeing the same equipment beggers belief.I think they did change it up from time to time.As to how I cannot say,but why not how it was shown in Gladiator.Everything they showed in the arena in Gladiator was possible for them to do at this time.Therefore I think it wasn\'t that unrealistic.
Alamo
The Alamo did happen and the people who were killed there was a fact.Did hollywood add more drama and fiction?Of course they did,every film does!To tell any historical movie exactly would probely bore most people other then us history junkies. ;)
Grenadier Christian:
--- Zitat ---Who do you disagree with,me or Angrist?
--- Ende Zitat ---
You. But it´s nothing personal, just with this movie reception.
--- Zitat ---I do have a few comments on your view.
--- Ende Zitat ---
It´s a free country, after all, so fire away! :D
--- Zitat ---Troy
--- Zitat ---but not tens of thousands
--- Ende Zitat ---
The film did not show tens of thousands,but rather thousands on each side. :whistling:
--- Ende Zitat ---
Well, it DID go on the \"a thousand ships for a woman\" and the \"huge army\" schtick. Anyway, they showed huge armies in tight formation which I assume was more inspried by the popular image of the phalanx rather than any concept one would have of bronze-age Europeans...
--- Zitat ---This is possible and it showed them fighting shield to shield.This is also more then likely.The shields were large and in a rectangle,which many historians believe is correct for this time.Their armour we both agree was way off,but did look good at least.
--- Ende Zitat ---
No problem with the shields, and it would make sense to employ them in such a manner. Nonetheless, I think the motion of fielding men in armies this huge on a battlefield is terribly anachronistic, at least for the greek.
--- Zitat ---Nobody would want to see them in pyrimid armour even if it was more accurate.
--- Ende Zitat ---
I would, but does Hollywood care about me? No! Frickin´ buggers! :D
--- Zitat ---How the chariots fought is not well understood.They were probely to light to act as heavy chariots.More then likely they fought on the side in personal duels and peppering the infantry on the flanks.Of course the king didn\'t control his troops through voice,but probely a horn or something.Hollywood changed some things for drama and looks but did capture a feel for the story and try to give it a somewhat realistic account from Homer.(If that\'s even possible)
--- Ende Zitat ---
Perfectly fine! But my main problem is, they tried to pass it off as a \"historical interpretation\" of the Iliad many times in interviews and marketing, and it failed completely in that.
--- Zitat ---300 from a historical point of view was a complete joke. :puke: This movie was an action adventure movie and nothng else,and when viewed this way is quite fun.The special effects and combat was fun to watch,plus it had a few good one liners.From a historical point of view I was very disappointed and tried not to laugh.I don\'t think there is a need to point out what they got wrong here.
--- Ende Zitat ---
Yes, of course! But it was ALWAYS marketed as an action movie based on a comic book which was drafted as a heroic epic! I NEVER saw any mention of the producers, director or even Mr. Miller calling the 300 franchise \"historic\"! They were straightforward and honest that it was a big entertainment slugfest and an exercise in the artistic portrayal of the possibilites of a graphic novel. They did NOT say it was a \"history epic\" like they said with Troy, Gladiator and Alexander (which was, IMHO, the most accurate of the three).
--- Zitat ---Gladiator
If the romens had time to prepare,scorpions were used.If they were used as mass artillery I can\'t say,but sure did look good in the film.As for the stone throwers(Onergers?)I do think they were only used in sieges if at all.
--- Ende Zitat ---
Apart from the fact that Onagers per se only came into use in the 3rd/4th century AD, that is correct. Those were far too immobile to be used in field battles.
--- Zitat ---Do you think when men charge that they can stay in a perfect line?If you do a sudden rush,it will be somewhat disorganized which is what is shown in the film.You can quick step and keep a pretty good straight line,but not a rush.
--- Ende Zitat ---
And that´s why most historians agree, based on the historical sources, that a legionaries´ charge was no wild rush but rather a quickstep move in after throwing their pila. Breaking line would have been (and was frequently, judging from the [admittedly unreliable] historians of the time) punished to enforce the strict discipline. Wild charges were a \"barbarian\" thing.
--- Zitat ---What happened in the arena may or may not have happened.You make it sound it was a rigid affair in the arena.
--- Ende Zitat ---
And yes, it was. From the middle of the 1st century BC to about the fourth century AD, Gladiator combat was very, very formalised. You only had a handful of \"gladiatorial types\", all with standardised equipment (although the look of their wargear could differ) and almost exclusively used in formalised pairings (as in, a heavily-armoured man fought a lighter-armoured one as was the case with the secutor/retiarius pairing). The venatio animal-hunts were less formalised, but also followed general consensus on equipment and tactics to provide a good show.
--- Zitat ---They did alot of crazy things in there.Did you know they flooded an arena and had a mock ship battle at one time!
--- Ende Zitat ---
Naumachiae were usually held in natural basins or dugouts prepared for the event. There are only two recorded occasions on which the colosseum arena was flooded (considering it was rebuilt with subterranean tunnels in the late 80s and early 90s, flooding the arena would have been a messy affair after that).
--- Zitat ---The arena was the romens movie theater.They were always trying to think of new ways to impress the crowd.The equipment was pretty much standardized,but to say they would not get bored of seeing the same equipment beggers belief.I think they did change it up from time to time.As to how I cannot say,but why not how it was shown in Gladiator.Everything they showed in the arena in Gladiator was possible for them to do at this time.Therefore I think it wasn\'t that unrealistic.
--- Ende Zitat ---
But the remaining sources and archeological findings only suggest the established canon. In that way, you could best describe it akin to modern sports events such as American Football, Soccer and the like - the \"kick\" was new players, seeing public favourites and the sheer number of pairings (usually, the size of ludes gladiatorii was described by the number of gladiator pairs that fought. Apart from that, there are some recorded extravaganzas, such as freakshows and slight variations of the established canon (such as men with two swords etc.), but nothing like the wild b*llsh*t they tried to pass off in Gladiator. They DID, however, do a good job to portray the \"public event\" that was a day in the amphitheatre. But the actual gladiatorial combat was nothing like that shown in the movie, especially considering the number of casualties (although you would allow for a nutcase like Commodus to allow munera sine missione from time to time). Gladiator games in the late republic to early empire were a bloody, but not necessarily lethal affair. Criminals et al made up the majority of ludes fatalities.
To sum up, a great movie with a considerable number of inaccuracies and errors which would not have been considered that bad HAD THEY NOT TRIED to convince people that it WAS an accurate depiction.
--- Zitat ---Alamo
The Alamo did happen and the people who were killed there was a fact.Did hollywood add more drama and fiction?Of course they did,every film does!To tell any historical movie exactly would probely bore most people other then us history junkies. ;)
--- Ende Zitat ---
No, certainly. But I am more likely to cut the John Wayne movie some slack than a newer one in a time in which any production boasts with the number of historical and military advisors. Again, though, I have NOT YET seen the new Alamo (didn´t make it to cinemas here IIRC) so I may reconsider my position after that.
Axebreaker:
I think I can simplify our disagreement.Almost all movies try and say their movie is historically accurate and seldom are they. ;) It\'s not good for the press to say your film is half right and almost correct.That will kill the film before it\'s out.Of course they say it\'s historically accurate,that\'s good for promotions.300 didn\'t need to do that for the reason that you already said. Most times if you do everything \"by the book\"the average movie Joe going to see it would fall asleep.(not us of course)Hollywood therefore adds a whole boat load of bs to make it more enjoyable.The real question is, does the movie capture the feel of the time and get people more interested in discovering what happened in the period.The result can often be good for us,because it draws more people into wargaming historical games. :thumbup:
As for me,I ask myself can I overlook the mistakes that were made if I feel the end result was possitive for the reasons I gave. :beer:
P.S.I hate Alexander which if anything had a total negative effect. :thumbdown:
Angrist:
maybe it would be good, if we return the the topic of this thread?
users here see all hours a new post here in this thread, but ist just a discussion about movies that aren´t screened during the next days.
I also liked the discussion but maybe it would be good, to do this in an extra thread.
It would be sad if people missed good movies because they ignored this thread because they thought that there are no more tipps what to watch in tv
Meine Meinung zu des Königs Admiral von heute morgen ist:
Super Film, leider nicht akutelles Bildmaterial (das ist ein film der eine überarbeitungs des Bildmaterials dringend nötig hätte)
Von der Qualität des Inhalts war ich aber schon überzeugt als im Vorspann kam, das CS Forrester selbst am Drehbuch mitgearbeitet hat.
Bei diesen alten Filmen hat man ja für das Deutsche Publikum noch viel mehr gemacht als heute, zum Beispiel wurden ja die Briefe wenn sie abgefilmt wurden,
für das Deutsche Publikum nochmals neu gefilmt,eben in deutscher Sprache, das war schon ein Service (auch wenn ich ihn jetzt nicht brauche)
noch 2 Tipps für die nächsten tage
samstag 0:25 rtl2 band of brothers doppelfolge kreuzungen und bastgogne (Ich weis BOB mag ja seine negativen Seiten haben, aber all in all ist es ziemlich gut)
ebenfalls am samstag 0:10 auf Kabel 1 Tigerland, film der in einem ausbildungslager (das namensgebende \"Tigerland\") für den Vietnamkrieg spielt und den Streit zweier Rekruten zum Thema hat
hab beides schon gesehen und kann es empfehlen.
Tigerland ist aber eben kein Kriegsfilm, es spielt nur im Trainingslager, wer also Vietnam erwartet hat Pech.
Grenadier Christian:
--- Zitat ---Des Königs Admiral
--- Ende Zitat ---
Auf der DVD, die ich hab, wurde das Material digital überarbeitet, und man merkt es - wesentlich bessere Farben, weniger Rauschen... Allerdings hab ich auch gemerkt, wie gut man damals Filme synchronisiert hat. Den kann man sich ohne Bedenken auf Deutsch geben, obwohl die ganzen amerikanischen Schauspieler sich ganz toll Mühe geben, auch möglichst britisch rüberzukommen. :D
Navigation
[0] Themen-Index
[#] Nächste Seite
[*] Vorherige Sete
Zur normalen Ansicht wechseln