Henry V (1989) is a better compromise to both, though it is a Shakespeare play. Bottom is still too dreary though. Henry and his Lords would be wearing colourful surcoats.
Any film made with the blue filter should be automatically banned from receiving oscars, awards, etc.
I think the lamps broke or something?
The obvious difference is that top is trying to look like a painting, like literal propaganda (mixed with religious destiny etc). Bottom is going the other direction, being "edgy/realistic"
How the frick does that look like a painting? You do realize that it's quite fricking well documented that that's how people dressed, right? Medieval times were full of color, stones castles were painted brightly, people wore bright red and green, people were happy and the situation most of the time was peaceful and secure.
>How the frick does that look like a painting
It's trying to evoke a painting with how the shot is composed and the lighting, I'm not talking about about how they're dressed, you idiot.
The israeli ending where they rewrite history and turn it into evil kkkapitalist vs feminist shit? Wow, you really are moronic. Don’t feel too bad though, I also thought there were a few good scenes despite my hatred for the movie.
You have a modern israeli idea of what art is. You know these c**ts didn’t have cameras, right? And besides there is so much overwhelming other evidence that the top of OP is accurate it’s insane you’re still trying to argue. You’re just an average psy-opped American Black person. I really hate to use this reddit phrase but: Read a fricking book.
>implying photographs show reality and common things >implying in 200 years historians won't see photos from behind the scenes of star wars and assume this was what people wore
yes, and when we see medieval depictions of fables with gigantic mouses in clothes we make assumptions that those were real things
>Every single day in the past was cloudy and rainy. There never was sunshine. No colors. Everything was muddy and dirty. People were constantly miserable.
Terrible fricking propaganda trying to get you to dismiss the past and accept your current situation as preferable.
Top one looks stupid, bottom is atmospheric and better looking. Will you homosexuals ever stop crying about this? It's you and Mexican homosexuals, color filters are used to help the atmosphere of a scene or movie
It serves the overall melancholic and hopeless tone of the movie which culminates in the Realisation that he got played like a little b***h and ended up being worse in everything he hated his father for
The israeli ending where they rewrite history and turn it into evil kkkapitalist vs feminist shit? Wow, you really are moronic. Don’t feel too bad though, I also thought there were a few good scenes despite my hatred for the movie.
>Rewrite history
It's based on the Shakespeare play not actual history you massive fricking homosexual
2 years ago
Anonymous
>t. hasnt read any of the henriad
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't have to have read it to say that it's based on a play that's based on history and already alters a lot about the story, I don't see the problem with creating another fictionalized Version with a different ending and johnny Depp's daughter
I think the lamps broke or something?
The obvious difference is that top is trying to look like a painting, like literal propaganda (mixed with religious destiny etc). Bottom is going the other direction, being "edgy/realistic"
How, Black person? Because it’s daytime and the KING OF ENGLAND isn’t wearing a fricking BUCKET over his chest? There is NOTHING realistic about the bottom.
This shit made the game unplayable in the first time after release until they toned it the frick down, everywhere you went everyone you met they said this shit
What they don't tell you is that after the humble archers and men at arms won such a great victory at Agincourt, the army travelled to Calais in a desperate starving state. However Henry V and the other nobles wouldn't let these humble men enter Calais - and they were forced to sell their prisoners and anything of value for scraps of bread so they didn't starve.
I'm not english, but what is obvious is that every anti anglo/america whiners is a seething third worlder. Anyway go back to Cinemaphile, you vermin always ruin every good threads.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nah I'm staying. Also, I not anti-England, I just don't like historical revisionism. Like in Braveheart, that was a clearly anti-english movie, and they did Longshanks dirty.
I love when armchair historian idiots say they wouldn't have cut the rope
yes they would
when the king cuts the first trebuchet rope of the siege it's like smashing a wine bottle to christen a ship, it's the big event of the day
>when the king
Fair point if that occasion is the only time they cut the rope in the movie
if the trebutchet is fired again by someone else in the movie and they still cut the rope then the armchair historians have a point.
yeah that's fine, but the problem is it sets the precedent the average idiot expects the rest to follow
if you don't cut the rope consistently the normies notice and question it but don't understand why sometimes it's done differently
You make a good point, the mix of washed out reds, ochre and pink is actually spot on for bottom dollar madder
I had approached it thinking bright reds are damn expensive to put on Yeomen, when that's not actually what's in the pic
Basically >Antiquity bad >Modernity good
They want modern audiences to associate the middle ages with dreariness, destitution, depressed populations, and death. Sure life was hard back then, but that doesn't mean colour wasn't invented until the Enlightenment and that everybody looked dour and sullen all the time.
due to lindy's recent video i realise how unwieldy the Excalibur armour really is, if he lifted his arms up his (awesome stunning) shoulderpad things would crush his helmet kek
also depending on what armour you mean, Alexander (2004) is stellar
The top at least has some color and jupons, but otherwise it's not particularly accurate. It's really weird how Japanese films are completely immaculate with portraying the aesthetic of Japan's past while it's completely normal to just make stuff as you go with medieval Europe.
bottom actually looks realistic
But it doesn't. It's thoroughly documented in the day they had plenty of colorful dyes that were cheap and easy to make at their disposal
Henry V (1989) is a better compromise to both, though it is a Shakespeare play. Bottom is still too dreary though. Henry and his Lords would be wearing colourful surcoats.
based
>Brian Blessed in that fricking armor
it makes me want to charge into battle every time.
1989 Henry V is the best Shakespeare adaptation ever made. Closely followed by Kurosawa's Ran.
Pure. Kino.
It's like Kagemusha, but you actually see the battle
I like the extra-red flash of the muskets
>Scenes women will never understand
Any film made with the blue filter should be automatically banned from receiving oscars, awards, etc.
How the frick does that look like a painting? You do realize that it's quite fricking well documented that that's how people dressed, right? Medieval times were full of color, stones castles were painted brightly, people wore bright red and green, people were happy and the situation most of the time was peaceful and secure.
>How the frick does that look like a painting
It's trying to evoke a painting with how the shot is composed and the lighting, I'm not talking about about how they're dressed, you idiot.
I didn't actually open the image, my bad anon. I thought you were referring to the colors and armor they're wearing.
>american education
The middle ages were very colorful.
American education. You bought the israelite propaganda about the Middle Ages.
Don’t you have autistic minors to groom on discord, /leftypol/troony?
They have their reasons
https://www.jta.org/2015/03/20/archive/from-notre-dame-to-prague-europes-anti-semitism-is-literally-carved-in-stone
>commissioned art represents reality!
So in 500 years they'll say this is how our world was, and you'll be OK with it. Right?
You have a modern israeli idea of what art is. You know these c**ts didn’t have cameras, right? And besides there is so much overwhelming other evidence that the top of OP is accurate it’s insane you’re still trying to argue. You’re just an average psy-opped American Black person. I really hate to use this reddit phrase but: Read a fricking book.
>implying photographs show reality and common things
>implying in 200 years historians won't see photos from behind the scenes of star wars and assume this was what people wore
yes, and when we see medieval depictions of fables with gigantic mouses in clothes we make assumptions that those were real things
no it doesn't moron
The top is autistically accurate to that time period, you fricking moron, and it was made in the middle of WWII.
No it doesn’t
American education
kek you got a lot of biters
>hehehe so many people called you stupid
Can the brownoid third world zoomers frick off please
>I was just pretending to be moronic
fell for the "realism" trap. now stuff doesn't even look real, but doesn't have the heightened quality of elaborate artificiality
you forgot to post the best one, that's what went wrong.
You mean right? They got rid of the shitty studio lighting
>Every single day in the past was cloudy and rainy. There never was sunshine. No colors. Everything was muddy and dirty. People were constantly miserable.
Terrible fricking propaganda trying to get you to dismiss the past and accept your current situation as preferable.
Anything that takes place before the modern liberal ethos must be made to look terrible
Everyone basically equates kings to like mini hitlers now because obviosuly the insanity that is liberal society is superior
You wouldn’t want a KING would you?
who are you quoting?
the shot on the bottom is clearly from late evening
the lighting at the top pic just looks like shit, extremely artificial.
>who are you quoting?
who indeed
Top one looks stupid, bottom is atmospheric and better looking. Will you homosexuals ever stop crying about this? It's you and Mexican homosexuals, color filters are used to help the atmosphere of a scene or movie
Every since gays took the rainbow as their sign we have began to attribute lots of colour with gayness
This is a 9/10 scene and you're a massive homosexual if you manage to watch this and still whine about color filters
It has no soul. It’s israeli.
The only person bringing up that pornography is you. leftypol are the worst trolls in the history of the internet.
>post degenerate shit but say it's what the other person is actually thinking
What’s should we name this behaviour? The Salò complex?
This scene being 9/10 doesn't fix the absolute dogshit of the visuals in the 95% of the movie and you're a massive homosexual to think otherwise.
No you're the homosexual
homosexual
It serves the overall melancholic and hopeless tone of the movie which culminates in the Realisation that he got played like a little b***h and ended up being worse in everything he hated his father for
Killing frogs is based though
The israeli ending where they rewrite history and turn it into evil kkkapitalist vs feminist shit? Wow, you really are moronic. Don’t feel too bad though, I also thought there were a few good scenes despite my hatred for the movie.
>Rewrite history
It's based on the Shakespeare play not actual history you massive fricking homosexual
>t. hasnt read any of the henriad
I don't have to have read it to say that it's based on a play that's based on history and already alters a lot about the story, I don't see the problem with creating another fictionalized Version with a different ending and johnny Depp's daughter
it was actually kino?
I think the lamps broke or something?
The obvious difference is that top is trying to look like a painting, like literal propaganda (mixed with religious destiny etc). Bottom is going the other direction, being "edgy/realistic"
How, Black person? Because it’s daytime and the KING OF ENGLAND isn’t wearing a fricking BUCKET over his chest? There is NOTHING realistic about the bottom.
It's trying to fit with the idea of what a "realistic movie" looks like.
GOD i love kingdom come deliverance
God bless you, anon!
HENRY COMES TO VISIT US
This shit made the game unplayable in the first time after release until they toned it the frick down, everywhere you went everyone you met they said this shit
What they don't tell you is that after the humble archers and men at arms won such a great victory at Agincourt, the army travelled to Calais in a desperate starving state. However Henry V and the other nobles wouldn't let these humble men enter Calais - and they were forced to sell their prisoners and anything of value for scraps of bread so they didn't starve.
top realistic, bottom some soiboys wearing chainmail and armour plates
the dark ages
I only liked Robert Pattinson. Everything else is anglo trash propaganda, and I'm not even french
It was clearly Judaeo-Franco-American anti-English propaganda.
>Nooooooo anglos bad you can't just make propaganda
Back to Cinemaphile with you, thirdie
>thirdie
I'm not english, frickboi
>Person whining about english people isn't english
Okay?
Dumb anglo, I'm calling your little islamic island part of the thirdworld
I'm not english, but what is obvious is that every anti anglo/america whiners is a seething third worlder. Anyway go back to Cinemaphile, you vermin always ruin every good threads.
Nah I'm staying. Also, I not anti-England, I just don't like historical revisionism. Like in Braveheart, that was a clearly anti-english movie, and they did Longshanks dirty.
I love when armchair historian idiots say they wouldn't have cut the rope
yes they would
when the king cuts the first trebuchet rope of the siege it's like smashing a wine bottle to christen a ship, it's the big event of the day
>when the king
Fair point if that occasion is the only time they cut the rope in the movie
if the trebutchet is fired again by someone else in the movie and they still cut the rope then the armchair historians have a point.
yeah that's fine, but the problem is it sets the precedent the average idiot expects the rest to follow
if you don't cut the rope consistently the normies notice and question it but don't understand why sometimes it's done differently
Longshanks did nothing wrong.
the yeomen up top shouldn't be in reds
browns yes, reds no
the cheapest bright colour of antiquity was verdigris
What about madder?
You make a good point, the mix of washed out reds, ochre and pink is actually spot on for bottom dollar madder
I had approached it thinking bright reds are damn expensive to put on Yeomen, when that's not actually what's in the pic
Basically
>Antiquity bad
>Modernity good
They want modern audiences to associate the middle ages with dreariness, destitution, depressed populations, and death. Sure life was hard back then, but that doesn't mean colour wasn't invented until the Enlightenment and that everybody looked dour and sullen all the time.
Seventh Seal
What’s this from?
Ironclad.
I’ll have to check it out.
b-but in hollywood the good guy deflects swords with sticks and swordsheathes and leather and
>sun is directly overhead
>but there's no light on anyone because...
What's some armour kino?
due to lindy's recent video i realise how unwieldy the Excalibur armour really is, if he lifted his arms up his (awesome stunning) shoulderpad things would crush his helmet kek
also depending on what armour you mean, Alexander (2004) is stellar
The top at least has some color and jupons, but otherwise it's not particularly accurate. It's really weird how Japanese films are completely immaculate with portraying the aesthetic of Japan's past while it's completely normal to just make stuff as you go with medieval Europe.