Pic from movie "Centurion", what say the experts?

[Aulus Perrinius]

Are you not entertained?! Are you not entertained?! :lol:

[Doc]

Mika,

Yor are correct. It has been described in the ancient sources. I believe Julius Caesar mentions something about dona being worn into battle. I do not think that it was reserved only for ceremonial purposes. Unlike modern armies, ancient ones wore their best and went out, if need be, in style. The richness of their armor told the enemy WHO they were.

Just my two cents.......

[Nathan Ross]

I believe Julius Caesar mentions something about dona being worn into battle.

It's in Spanish War.23 - two centurions of the fifth legion die fighting at Munda and the enemy 'rush in to strip the decorations' from one of them. But it's a debatable passage, omitted in many translations. The word used, as mentioned somewhere here before, is insignia, which could mean several things, but phalerae is certainly possible, if the text is accurate.

- Nathan

[Narukami]

This film is due to open in the US on August 6th of this year, followed by the competing film Eagle Of The Ninth.

Centurion was shown last week in Austin as the SXSW festival and received a good review from the Hollywood Reporter. Of course, one review does not a hit make, and as always time will tell.

Here is the link to the discussion on this film in the Reference & Review section.

<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=28500">viewtopic.php?f=18&t=28500<!-- l

:wink:

Narukami

[M. Demetrius]

Well, maybe it will boost the US interest in Roman things. That would make the movie worthwhile, I think, even if it's not great historically speaking.

[Medicus matt]

It's also possible that the seg is made from plastic made to look like metal.

Correct. It's toughened plastic.

[Sardaukar]

Well...could have been worse.

[Medicus matt]

Well...could have been worse.

Could indeed. I think the seg looks pretty good for film armour.

[arklore70]

Overall,
its not too horrid as far as the appearances go, and the scuta and the helmets in the background look relatively good. Its close enough that I can at least tolerate it while watching the movie. Seems like their was at least a attempt made to gets things kinda right and its better than anything else I have seen.

While progress is being made, I think the tradedgy lies in the fact that I can just see a new re enactor showing up to a event looking like either the legionary or the centurion and having to encourage them to "work/scrap" their currentl kit for something more accurate.

[markusaurelius]

The overall appearance looks decent to me. I certainly won't be staring at each buckle and thread if the story is worth anything. I think thus far it is a long step in the right direction compared to the outfits in Ben Hur......

[Sardaukar]

How about the "competing" movie, "Eagle of the Ninth"? So far I have seen only this picture from it:

[url:39wwgdyr]http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2560855808/tt1034389[/url]

Those pteryges in movies/TV always look bit too feeble for me. "Rome" was especially bad with those shoulder-ones flapping around. Weren't they multi-layered to offer protection?

[Matthew Amt]

Typical brownish goo-covered look. Proof that ancient people liked to smear everything with excrement, apparently... Got Brasso?

Oh, well...

Matthew

[Aulus Perrinius]

To be fair bronze can look like that

[Matthew Amt]

To be fair bronze can look like that

Sure, if you bury it for a few years, or just neglect it long enough. But armor was polished--that's the whole reason it was worn! To shine and make you look god-like! Soldiers were issued armor so that they'd have something to clean, and it's just too easy to keep bronze and brass shiny. We've been over this topic many times, eh?

Matthew

[Doc]

I agree that the armor would not have necessarily looked crappy. However, I tend to categorize it more as clean since I do not see someone sitting down and turning their armor into the mirror finish that is normally seen on reconstructions. Also armor of that period would have been more dingy than the armor we have simply because of the material manufacture. Our metals although categorized as were in the period, have certain homogeneity and processing that can make them more resistant.

I think that the musculata from the angle that it is being shown, is too muscular. Again, when looking at statues, for the most part, the musculature sculpted is not body builder type. To go a step further, none of the actual curiasses found that I know of have this type of exaggerated musculature.

However, I think that it is important to understand that no matter how inaccurate the equipment may be, the movie has to be fun to watch. We cannot look at movies and say that they are no good becuase they used a leather musculata instead of metal or that there are those forearm guards that eveyone hates. Fantasy is exotic and colorful, it catches the eye.

I think that movies should be just watched with no interpretation unless there are really gross errors to the point of stupidity and absurdity; 300 ring a bell? Even here, people still watched just for fun.

It has also been my experience when watching the movie Gladiator with others that when something happens and I am asked if the occurrence was really true, after I answer the question the person says "ok thanks". People are NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN WHAT THE TRUE HISTORY IS OTHER THAN A PASSING FANCY, THEY WANT TO SEE VIOLENCE AND HOT SEX SCENES WITH GORGEOUS WOMEN. So is the move of current society. Current society does not want to watch movies lik Ben Hur. I know that there were inaccurices as well. However, the nature and speed of the film takes you back to the Roman period which for most of the young crowd today is like something that drags on and never ends.