01-03-2006, 11:38 AM
But Mark, that's not because they CAN'T get it right, but simply because they DON'T WANT to. A director has to take ownership of the story, so he imposes a particular stamp on it. I think "300" is showing sad signs of this. As soon as I saw the phrase "graphic novel" I thought, "Oh-ohhh..."
The Costume designer also has a reputation to make, so he has to do more than just get it right; he has to set a style. I think the worst example of this was "First Knight", with all the Arthurian Knights looking as if they'd just come off the catwalk in some Italian fashion-house. (The designer WAS Italian). A good example of it was "Excalibur" where everyone had animalistic helmets and grey armour, until Arthur came along, at which point the helmets lost their fangs and snouts and the armour shone (for the goodies, at least). Both films were fantasy, but I felt that one had a better "concept" than the other.
Other excuses regularly offered for inaccuracies are Audience Expectation and Accessibility. The first says, for example, that Vikings must be covered in fur and the second that Goodies and Baddies must be easily distinguishable - hence the High Medieval "English" ship and shields in "The Vikings". Finally, there is always the tendency to want to "tart things up" - clearly exemplified in the photo. Well, I can understand that...Metal jobs like the one in the photo (just a glorified bracelet) will actually chew your wrist up if you wear them in battle.
However, if you do the Archaic Period, you've got a good excuse to wear bronze vambraces, look like a tart and be accurate! And, if they're made right, they shouldn't bite you.
The Costume designer also has a reputation to make, so he has to do more than just get it right; he has to set a style. I think the worst example of this was "First Knight", with all the Arthurian Knights looking as if they'd just come off the catwalk in some Italian fashion-house. (The designer WAS Italian). A good example of it was "Excalibur" where everyone had animalistic helmets and grey armour, until Arthur came along, at which point the helmets lost their fangs and snouts and the armour shone (for the goodies, at least). Both films were fantasy, but I felt that one had a better "concept" than the other.
Other excuses regularly offered for inaccuracies are Audience Expectation and Accessibility. The first says, for example, that Vikings must be covered in fur and the second that Goodies and Baddies must be easily distinguishable - hence the High Medieval "English" ship and shields in "The Vikings". Finally, there is always the tendency to want to "tart things up" - clearly exemplified in the photo. Well, I can understand that...Metal jobs like the one in the photo (just a glorified bracelet) will actually chew your wrist up if you wear them in battle.
However, if you do the Archaic Period, you've got a good excuse to wear bronze vambraces, look like a tart and be accurate! And, if they're made right, they shouldn't bite you.
