Rome HBO series, last post look at these two pictures

[Woadwarrior]

but it doesnt look like they have makeup ( the two actors).
all i know is that they just look different form the renactors aqt ermine street guard

[tlclark]

I used to work (briefly) for a stage costume outfit in Vegas.

(No we didn't make showgirl costumes. Rather we made huge banana and pizza slices)

At any rate, backstage once I got to see the unbelievable amounts of make-up they troweled onto the performers, all over, in layers thick enough to protect them from chernobyl levels of radiation. They were going for a natural look, they told me.

I thought it was insane, but they said "Oh no! this is what we need just to counteract the heavy lighting, it will look great from the seats."

And sure enough, they looked great.

Travis

[Chuck Russell]

from that last picture you posted they added a bit to the armour: http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/ ... rom111.jpg

the shoulder doubleings are wrong, gladius handle wrong, belt plaques wrong, wrist guards wrong, cloak closure wrong, saddle wrong, horse barding bridal and bit wrong. cotton clothing wrong. the neckerchief would go under the hamata, not over it. and im not so sure about a buzz cut being period either

[stevesarak]

Someone else could give you the details of which is which but one of the reason that HBO series looks more to your liking is either they are or aren’t (I don’t remember which) using film. The reenactors took pictures that give you a live look, film doesn’t, file almost looks as if your using a filter. Look at clips from old TV shows compared to today. The ones way back then, you can see the light glaring and it looks like the actors are just standing in the room, when they switched to film (or away from it) it took away from that live look, giving you more of movie look.

[Woadwarrior]

oh come on now everything is wrong in that picture now?
added what to the armour?

so if i went to ancient roman times is it possible they could of looke dlike that?
it really doesnt look like they are wearing makeup

[Woadwarrior]

doesnt anybody agree with me that there is nothing historically wrong wtih those pics

it hardly looks like it has makeup on them
and nobody even answered my real question, and nobody answered if there is even makeup on those two soldiers

and if there is, is that the only thing that is all ''movie'' look on them?

[Woadwarrior]

movies like rome , just seem to capture reality they really look real, and reenactors have AUTHENTIC equipment, but they just dont feel roman
in the movie the have to ACT roman and it just seems that it was like that in history, and yes does feel alittle epic.

would the renactors look different if they were ACTUAL ROMANs ??
explain
and not to forget to answer my other previous posts
anyway see u all tomorrow

[Woadwarrior]

would the reenactors look different and more like on rome if they were actually roman, and or they had been fighting to death in a battle

and if makeup make people look more natural, then how come that pic is not realisrtic, and historically in accurate?
???

ill read any reply tomorrow
thanx to all the people who reply to my sumwhat stupid posts

[Robert Vermaat]

would the reenactors look different and more like on rome if they were actually roman, and or they had been fighting to death in a battle

I think re-enactors would certainly look different when they had been fighting to the death in a battle.... : :wink:

[Woadwarrior]

would they look different if tey were actually roman?

and please anwer above post questions

[Caius Fabius]

Yes. They would look different if they weren't actors from North Europe, wearing make up, in artificially enhanced lighting. They would look different if they were in actual Roman clothing and armor, and if they were really riding horses that were the right size, with the right horse furniture and equipment. They would look different if they were real soldiers who had spent the past few years living outdoors, eating military food and sleeping under the tents, riding dozens of miles ever day, and fighting for their lives. And they would probably look a bit more like the ancient statues of Romans in their facial features.

[Matthew Amt]

doesnt anybody agree with me that there is nothing historically wrong wtih those pics

It looks like we all agree that there is some stuff in that photo that isn't too bad (the general shape and form of the left-hand hamata, for instance), but lots of little mistakes that are the kind of things we notice. These guys look a lot better than "Romans" in a lot of other movies, for sure, but they are not at all what we would call "accurate". You have to understand, Francis, that some of us have been researching things like the exact shapes of rivet heads for over 15 years, literally pressing our noses into books and museum cases trying to get a good look at tiny details so we can try to copy them. It makes us very sensitive to some kinds of details. Other folks have studied art and architecture for decades, so they see all kinds of errors in the sets from "Rome" that I would never notice myself.

it hardly looks like it has makeup on them
and nobody even answered my real question, and nobody answered if there is even makeup on those two soldiers

Yes, we did--we said they most certainly ARE wearing makeup. If they weren't, they would hardly look human under the normal conditions of movie filming. Did you ever see (or hear of) the movie "Tootsie"? Dustin Hoffman plays a guy who disguises himself as a woman. I think the movie won an award for making him look like a convincing (if not very attractive) woman, and he certainly looks totally believable on screen. But in reality, the heat of the lights during filming was literally melting his made-up face, to the point where it was sliding off.

The point is that you HAVE to use makeup to make it LOOK like you are NOT!

[/quote]and if there is, is that the only thing that is all ''movie'' look on them?[/quote]

The wristguards are a dead "movie" giveaway. Also the emphasis on brown leather, muted clothing colors, extra studs on the horse harness, and the overall lack of glinting polished metal. Hollywood refuses to admit that the ancients liked bright colors.

would the reenactors look different and more like on rome if they were actually roman, and or they had been fighting to death in a battle

Well, yeah, if you had been born and raised in a VERY different world without modern amenities and trained every day to kill people by shoving a foot of steel into their guts, wouldn't you look different? But you'd still look like a human being. Most of what seems to be worrying you seems to be just the way a movie can tell a convincing story, making it look literally more real than real life. Reenactors can't do that, but WE ARE NOT TRYING TO. Our "job" is present our work to the public LIVE, up close and personal, so that people can put a very realistic helmet on their heads and hold a shield in their hands. THAT gives them a very revealing taste of reality that they can never get from a movie. I see faces light up in surprise all the time as people pick up a piece of gear and learn something about it. It's a little hard to sum up the differences between movies and my own 25 years of reenacting experience in a couple Internet messages, so all I can do is hope that you'll trust our judgement.

We are trying to answer your questions, but if you won't accept the facts we present, we may stop trying.

Vale,

Matthew

[Woadwarrior]

the ancients liked bright colors?
so that pic with the grayish tunic, and leather wrist bands is inaccurate?
what brIght colors would they have used

[tlclark]

Well we can only answer based on finds in art, since most of the fabrics don't survive outside a lot of late coptic and egyptian examples.

In frescoes the range of colors is a broad as possible given the pigments available. The only assumption is that they had as many colors as they had varieties of dyes.

No one can give you a comprehensive list but here's a foretaste.

Reds:

Everything from Rust brown to Pink, with lots of bright scarlets, cherries, vermilions and rubies in between. Dyes would be Madder, Iron Oxide, Magnesium Oxide and a variety of vegetable/animal dyes.

Yellows:

Everything from pale pastel to dark ochres, with onion skins, nut shells and animal fat being used as dyes.

Purples:

Everything from pale lilac and lavendar (some even dyed by flowers) to near purple brown made from purpura murex or snails.

Greens:

Endless, lots of pale greens and teals in the frescoes, with verdigris and huge variety of vegetable dyes readily available.

Blues:

Every shade here too with lapis Lazuli ground down for the dark blue pigments and pale blues from various oxides and vegetable dyes.

Grays, Browns and blacks

A lot of these come natural off the fabric, usually wool, but also Magnesium Oxides, charcoal and Umbers were used as dyes as well.

Whites and naturals

Lots of bleaching agents are mentioned including urine, salt oxides, sun bleaching, and even pounded chalk!

By blending any of these, any combination of colors was possible short of the sort of neon day glo colors only seen today.

Clothes for civilians could be anything. Paler colors using vegetable and common mineral dyes would have been most prevalent, so think mid-range and lighter tones in yellow/oranges greens, blues and browns (at least that's what we see in the artwork), but even a person of moderate means could afford darker reds and rich blues, but most really expensive dyes were restricted to upper classes but people cheated all the time.

Also, consider quality. A dull brown mantle might be considered dull, but people of the time would recognize the density of the weave, the quality of the thread, etc. So color is not the only way to indicate status.

Basically, anyone with a bag of yellow or red onions could produce a dye strong enough to create a mid-tone garment. And since a lot of the dyes were made from agricultural waste, why not? It was efficient and anyone could do it.

Vegetable dyes fade the quickest but nothing stops you from redying yout tunic.

There might have even been more color variation amongst the lower classes since upper classes were expected to wear certain colors for ceremonial purposes.

Now in military terms...that's another huge debate.

Search "Tunic color" in the database and see how many hits you get. :wink:

Travis

[Woadwarrior]

wow thanx for the list
so theres nothing wrong with those two soldiers wearing that color??
they wear makeup so they dont sweat.
there are no enhanced artificial lights because they are outside
the type of armour is accurate
so there is nothing historically unrealistic, right
??/
y doesnt anybody agree with me

do they put makeup on the Armour?