Why cant we get historical, or historically based fantasies, with period correct clothes and armor and arms anymore?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Why cant we get historical, or historically based fantasies, with period correct clothes and armor and arms anymore?
Serious reply, culture and education has degraded to such a level that people don't know anything about their own history or culture, so they don't care about it. That's why knights or vikings etc., now have to just be biker dudes but with swords.
but how did that turn into swirling kilts/cloaks for clothes and ragged straps of pleather for armor?
because that's how bikers look
>but how did that turn into swirling kilts/cloaks for clothes and ragged straps of pleather for armor?
Incredibly cheap to make and everybody's too acceptable about the changes to say anything.
because normies are literally braindead morons
Look at this, literally every one of these is just a wallet with legs
they have no self awareness, they have no critical thinking skills
they are the people people make movies for, because it's low effort, high reward every single time
they don't want any depth in their movies, they just want something easy to digest so they can quickly shit out an opinion on it on the social media of their choice afterwards
Pathetic sheep
it's expensive and you'll just pirate it
you know the answer already
>research historical clothing, armor, and weapons
>its all way cooler than the shit Hollywood does with full creative freedom and hundreds of millions of dollars
>research actual historical swordfighting techniques
>its all way cooler to watch than hollywood swordfighting which throws away realism to supposedly look better
I dont think we have ever seen a poleaxe used
The sword was always the sidearm of a man-at-arms, not the primary weapon.
Initially the primary weapon would have been a long two handed axe, commonly called the Viking/Danish/English axe or just plain long axe.
This evolved into the poleaxe as men-at-arms wore more and more plate armor which an axe alone could not counter.
The hammer on one side could be used to bash and deliver blunt trauma to stun the opponent, the axe to break into joints in the plate, and the head spike to pierce into these weak points.
And similarly as more armor was worn men-at-arms stopped carrying shields allowing the arming sword to grow into the longsword in this video
Particularly long swords often were used as primary weapons, they just weren't something you'd want to fight an enemy in full plate with.
Longswords are definitely overrepresented in historicals though
>they just weren't something you'd want to fight an enemy in full plate with.
they were explicitly designed for this.
their long sharp tips and ability to be half-sworded meant the wielder had an easier time of wedging the sword into the joints.
they were also consciously designed so you could grip the the blade and swing the hilt and pommel as a makeshift mace/pick.
they were extremely versatile and that's why they were so ubiquitous.
yes, blunt mace-type weapons could* be better than swords, but that doesnt disqualify the longsword as a weapon to use vs full plate
You're describing the longsword. It grew longer as they no longer had to carry a shield thanks to all the plate now being worn, and they learnt how to fight against an armored opponent with it. But it was not 'purpose designed for this' it was still the sidearm, the Poleaxe was the primary and it was designed for an armored opponent.
>designed to grip the blade
They simply left the lower portion of the blade unsharpened, called the ricasso.
>They simply left the lower portion of the blade unsharpened, called the ricasso.
that is "design", yes.
>I'm not going to sharpen this part so I can grip it like a leaver
That's not design.
Design would be something like the Estoc which was purely stabbing with no cutting edge or the Executioners Sword which could only cut and had a blunt tip.
They also made the points skinnier and the blades stiffer to deal with armour
>for the Estoc
I guess you could consider it the logical conclusion of that design philosophy, but I was talking about longswords.
Those changes definitely improved on them for that purpose, but thats still an "in case you unfortunately end up in this situation, you'll be better off" type of thing. A more durable weapon with more weight and more reach that will allow you to just pummel your opponent into oblivion is far better than desperately trying to get incredibly precise surgical hits in.
Imagine you're in a modern war, and theres a house up ahead. You could send a squad in to clear it with their rifles, weaving through hails of bullets, peeking through doorways and windows, this could technically work. Or you could blast it once or twice with a mortar.
Yeah I'm aware that theres lots more complexities to the flags like organization and communication but I just wanted to keep it simple for anon
>god tier positioning
>no tactical flexibility
>only lose because your men didn't stay in their lines
imagine what was going through Harold's head in this moment other than that arrow
>anymore
we never did
this is because normalhomosexuals are basically moronic.
If you're 115 IQ, then normalhomosexuals are fricking stupid
If you're 130 IQ, normalhomosexuals are basically mentally moronic in comparison.
ALSO, the REAL reason, beyond me seething about normalhomosexuals, is that you need actual armorsmiths, not "costume designers" to make suits for dozens of actors and extras; whereas using cheap "chainmail" and plastic "plate" armor is far, far more practical.
Normalhomosexuals simply can't tell any difference because they have no thought nor curiosity in their heads besides what fast food they're going to eat in the next half hour.
Naturally, higher IQ people love medieval aesthetics because they are high IQ aristocrat aesthetics.
regardless of what the costumes are made out of the costume designers dont make the costumes
they designt them
its in the name
working under them are the people who make the costumes, whatever the material might be
"design" includes the material they're made of.
I dont mean concept artists.
I mean the people who actually design the physical* costumes.
the Art Department draughtsmen do the concept art
the costume designers then design how it will be made
and over see the tailors, seamstresses, fabricators, armorers, etc
you dont know what you are talking about and are very confused
>semantics
idgaf about hollywood homosexual departments t b h
Surely modern industrial techniques could make passable looking costumes on the needed scale easily. Only things for main actors and closeup scenes would the authentic handcrafted look.
It would make battle scenes pretty confusing. Weren't uniforms not really a thing in medieval armies? Also people love swordfights, it's much less exciting seeing dudes getting stabbed by pikemen over and over again.
>It would make battle scenes pretty confusing.
>each man-at-arms has his own unique coat of arms on his chest or helmet
If you find that confusing you probably cant tell the power rangers and ninja turtles apart
>Weren't uniforms not really a thing in medieval armies?
That would be true in the later 'shot and pike' era of warfare, but they still fought under banners
you're a brainlet since
lack visual clarity, thats why lightsabers and laser guns are popular
>It would make battle scenes pretty confusing
Not really if they were done realistically(and lets face it better) than the typical hollywood garbage of a bunch of disorganized idiots sprinting into each other like football hooligans.
In real life, for most of history, warfare was done with a bunch of dudes standing in square shaped formations beneath at least one giant flag to show what side they're on.
>to show what side they're on
troops were drilled to follow it
because thats fake and gay nerd shit, go watch a documentary
people want idealized versions of those things, that's why its called fantasy
because it's le hard.
Easier to just make up a bunch of bs and say "lol it's fantasy"
Didn't the womyn writing this say she wanted them to look like a wrinkly veiny ball sack?
That was much later, landskneckt were infantry not men-at-arms or knights
Why can't we have actual tactics? Why does every battle have to be a group duel?
Medieval battles were exciting.
E.g. a description of the Battle of Lewis:
>Rebels under Montfort had occupied a hill
>Royal forces under the King and his son, Edward outnumbered the rebels.
>Edward commanded cavalry
>Rebels ordered a cavalry charge downhill
>Edward's cavalry defeated cavalry and forced them to flee
>Edward and his cavalry decided pursue the cavalry
>Meanwhile, Montfort ordered his infantry to attack the King's infantry left without no cavalry support
>They moved so fast, the Royal infantry collapsed
>So, when Edward's cavalry refused the King had already surrendered
>Medieval battles were exciting
90% of medieval battles were one-sided slaughter
90% of all battles were a bunch of guys standing 50 feet apart giving each other the stink eye and wondering who was going to move first. And everyone was piss drunk.
Then when shit went down everyone got lost and disorganised and had to go take a breather and regroup. The Hollywood giant melee 5 minute long battle is absurd in the extreme.
>and had to go take a breather
I cant speak for the peasantry but the men-at-arms trained regularly in their amor and a lot of their training focused on cardio and stamina/endurance
running in armor, dancing in armor, vaulting fences in armor, etc
Why do boxers fight in rounds? Fighting is exhausting.
Note, their breathing is not restricted by a helmet.
neither is a man-at-arms breathing
in bare knuckle days it would just go til one of them stopped
early UFC was a single 30 minute round
>early UFC was a single 30 minute round
Yeah and those guys are at absolute peak condition and almost entirely unencumbered.
see
now put that homie on a horse and give him a long ass stick
Carrying that weight won't make you significantly slower if you're strong but you will get TIRED QUICKER. That's been my point all along.
>but you will get tired quicker
which is why they REGULARLY TRAINED IN IT and built up stamina and endurance
in addition to the armor, we know that they used Roman military manuals until quite late into the medieval era so it is also possible they may have copied their practice of using extra-heavy training versions of swords and shields
the extra weight would help build muscle and stamina
>Yeah and those guys are at absolute peak condition
in the early UFC that he speaks of except for Dan Severn they were all taking supplements
>they were all taking supplements
Yeah, science magic bullshit that didn't exist back then.
Did you see The Last Duel?
>Why cant we get historical [...] armor
this was the actual helmet the guy wore
Isn't this a perfectly fine helmet for jousting?
We've never had that
>finally Hollywood starts putting pike formations and shield walls into movies
>have them completely ineffective against cavalry or have them completely abandoned to fight individually within the first minute of the battle anyway
hate being reminded that those hobbit movies exist
it's LOTR
that's so fricking moronic i can't even
Old bad and fascist
wut
Actors can sometimes have contracts that stipulate their faces must be shown for the majority of the film's runtime. Main reason why Karl Urban in Dredd was a big deal because he never took off his helmet.
For a film with antiquity or medieval-based combat, the characters might wear their helmets sometime, but for the actors won't tolerate that. Even in Troy when Hector and Achilles have their final duel, they take off their fricking helmets.
Beyond that, it's a matter of how competent the costume designer is. Will their work be reflective of the period itself or source material or will they just make Netflix Witcher penis armor?
I have never heard of such a contract clause, please cite an example?
I think it is the studios not the actors, they'd be thinking "we spent X millions for them by god we're showing them off" - that was the admitted thinking in the first Judge Dredd movie with Stalone going around with no helmet unlike the comic.
The costume designer answers to the production designer who answers to the director and producers.
The Mandalorian.
Pedro Pascal nearly gave up after season one due to not showing his face. Career reasons, because if there is no face to the role, its nearly useless for further role in your CV
Pascal hasn't play the mandalorian its stuntmen he just voices the character
evidently not
Are you saying that is not his voice?
I am saying it is him who is playing Mando. He's credited for that and there are tons of BTS footage.
Possible, that there was a stuntman for dangerous scenes, but not as default.
another reason for taking of helmets and showing faces is to humanise them, show emotions, make it easier for audiences to follow them (or so the studio thinks when as this guy
says it should be easy if you make sure to associate characters with their coat of arms in advance)
>another reason for taking of helmets and showing faces is to humanise them, show emotions, make it easier for audiences to follow them
that's moronic as well. audiences couldn't understand the emotions of the mandalorian? these "reasons" are such bullshit you morons make up because it "sounds" right even though it's based on nothing. you can't tell those different mando characters apart either, right? because they all wear armor, so they look the same? moron. it's so fricking obvious if you think for 10 seconds that what you're saying is wrong, but you say it because all those video essays where some guy ASMRs some bullshit into your face has destroyed your brain
>that's moronic as well
That's Hollywood for you
Not really
>Main reason why Karl Urban in Dredd was a big deal because he never took off his helmet
Karl Urban is a big fan of the comic and only agreed to take the role if he won't take off the helmet in the movie.
because it s a niche setting , you can t root for a team , medieval history is always about family and family feuds and even when they sometimes represent a country ex france , they spend half the time bickering about themselves .
with that in mind it s hard to delve even deeper into that and say ah yes well actually this armor is not representative to the time period etc etc
people are only interested in parts where they can see a clear team ex english vs france or christians vs muslims , no one cares about the 30 year war for example (not medieval but you get the point)
just look at the popularity of early GoT, which is basically war of the roses. and even without that there are plenty of bigger conflicts, like the ottoman siege of vienna, the crusades, the reconquista, the 30 years war and so on
make a small scale conflict
a Condottiere company of just ~200 gets hired by one lord to stop another lord contesting his title
Make it be a Japanese samurai ship that washes up in England and they use their superior equipment to take over the island from the anglos?
see
I've always wanted more movies like 'Waterloo' where they autistically recreate a historical event as it would have been seen. I'm tired of all these horrible dramatizations. Frick 'Braveheart', frick 'Napoleon', frick 'Gladiator', frick the queen.
it's very expensive
building it like Weta maybe but there exists hundreds of HEMA gays you can use who already spent the money