21–26 of 26 posts
My favorite nitpick about “movie Romans,” is stirrups. They didn’t have them, and thus, couldn’t really fight well, from horses. Stirrups are one of those “silly little ideas” that changed the world.
My favorite nitpick about “movie Romans,” is stirrups. They didn’t have them, and thus, couldn’t really fight well, from horses. Stirrups are one of those “silly little ideas” that changed the world.
Stirrups are among the more forgivable historical inaccuracies, as it is difficult enough to find people who can both act and horse-ride with them reasonably well. Also, if the depiction of cavalry was more historically accurate it would matter a lot less.
I’m pretty sure that stirrups have been crucial to cavalry tactics since they showed up in Europe (I think around the Dark Ages). Being able to stand up in the saddle was certainly important to lancers.
Of course, horse training was also important.
I couldn't remember the idiot's name at the end of the movie.
My only detailed memory the next day was "My name is Biggus Dickus Dorkus Maximus. You keeled my {long list}. Prepare to die.". Except played straight. Oh, and some kind of stupid solarized heaven.
I would have preferred if the author reasoned through why a filmmaker might make these decisions and/or offer feasible solutions. "This is wrong" does not seem helpful to an audience. That proper roman battle looks an order of magnitude more expensive to shoot, Decimus Meridius Maximus doesn't flow off the tongue as well, and there are plenty of composition arguments to be made for why the fortifications and formatio…
He does that all the time. Usually at the end of the series. Like down to "you can't film these tactics because it would be unsafe to have people holding the weapons realistically".
But if you're not going to depict Rome, why call the setting Rome?
Not that the movie wouldn't have sucked set in the Galactic Empire or whatever.
As a filmmaker, Ridley Scott has the right to create whatever he believes will be more cinematic. However, historians also have the right to point out differences. This is not nit-picking; it is the communication of actual historical science, which is as important as the film itself, if not more so. Not everything is about making the most money. Sometimes, your legacy is about accurately recounting events based on th…
No - some people's legacy is that. It's not sometimes that for everyone.
I am led to believe Ridley Scott is over being told he isn't historically accurate. He knows. He also does care about some things, and doesn't like being nitpicked about others. He really cares about a visually beautiful, historically "acceptable" framing, colour matched and evoking a mood. "But the Germanic people didn't wear braes at this time and wolfskin wasn't worn with laminar armour" makes his temper show. Bre…