12-19-2006, 12:17 PM
The film takes place on a modern Seattle street, so the Roman soldier is actually a regular modern person in Roman soldier costume -- presumably a re-enactor. The two main characters are a youngish married couple, both nuts about movies. "Jason" is the sort of movie geek who gets a thrill out of catching movie-making mistakes -- things like reflections of the camera in windows, drinking glasses with drinks that change quantity between cuts without being sipped or refilled, and (of special interest on this site) factual errors. "Amy" is more interested in just enjoying the movie, but still enjoys catching a mistake he misses.
When they see the "Roman soldier" on the street, she admires its historical detail. In reply, he comments on the divergences from historical correctness. Here's a draft of the dialogue, so early I haven't even typed it into the actual screenplay draft:
__________AMY
Nice costume. Way better than the ones in Gladiator.
__________JASON
His spear is wrong. Should be forge-black, not shiny.
__________AMY
Still better than Gladiator.
__________JASON
That's not saying much.
__________AMY
True. But he's even wearing the sword right.
[Cut to next scene.]
That's just one small scene in a longer short-film, but it's the only one that depends on the expertise I can find here. So, my questions for those who really know how to properly rip apart Hollywood Roman blunders:
1. Is Gladiator the best example of a movie to pick on as one that messes up the costuming? When I was ripping it to pieces the worst thing I saw wrong was really gross temporal aliasing in the computer graphics of the arena. (Way off topic: Temporal aliasing means jagged pixels that wobble across the screen because of the way the computer graphics software converts its three-dimensional model into a two-dimensional image.) I didn't know enough about Roman details to properly rip on the costuming. Was it just ordinary bad, or Really Really Bad?
If Gladiator was just ordinary bad, can anyone suggest a good substitute that's Really Really Bad? The advantage of Gladiator, for purposes of my script, is that it's very well known. Even if the 1907 version of Ben-Hur was the most awful example of Roman costuming in film history, it's no good because almost no one has seen it. I haven't seen it, almost no one in my film's audience will even know it exists, and if my "Jason" character were a real person he probably wouldn't have seen it either. So if I'm to replace Gladiator with another movie title that screws up its Roman costumes, it should be a title that a lot of people will recognize.
2. The words "he's even wearing the sword right" are just an example for now, because I just don't know what sort of details Hollywood routinely fouls up. The detail should be something that both my short film characters could see and that the film audience can see. The characters will have several seconds to look at him from two or three meters away, then a brief peek as they walk past him as close as one meter.
The audience will see the character in a shot from the characters' points of view. He'll be a part of a crowd, but he'll stand out because he's the only one dressed like a Roman soldier. It's possible that he'll get a close-up shot that looks him over head to toe, but that depends on the director, the editor, and how the timing of the scene plays out. Although the characters will be looking him over, it seems more likely that he won't get that sort of close-up shot, or that the shot will end up in the DVD's "Deleted Scenes" section.
3. I don't mean to limit commentary to the selection of movie to pick on or the part of the costume they'd admire for being surprisingly correct. If anyone wants to suggest something else for the scene, I welcome it.
When they see the "Roman soldier" on the street, she admires its historical detail. In reply, he comments on the divergences from historical correctness. Here's a draft of the dialogue, so early I haven't even typed it into the actual screenplay draft:
__________AMY
Nice costume. Way better than the ones in Gladiator.
__________JASON
His spear is wrong. Should be forge-black, not shiny.
__________AMY
Still better than Gladiator.
__________JASON
That's not saying much.
__________AMY
True. But he's even wearing the sword right.
[Cut to next scene.]
That's just one small scene in a longer short-film, but it's the only one that depends on the expertise I can find here. So, my questions for those who really know how to properly rip apart Hollywood Roman blunders:
1. Is Gladiator the best example of a movie to pick on as one that messes up the costuming? When I was ripping it to pieces the worst thing I saw wrong was really gross temporal aliasing in the computer graphics of the arena. (Way off topic: Temporal aliasing means jagged pixels that wobble across the screen because of the way the computer graphics software converts its three-dimensional model into a two-dimensional image.) I didn't know enough about Roman details to properly rip on the costuming. Was it just ordinary bad, or Really Really Bad?
If Gladiator was just ordinary bad, can anyone suggest a good substitute that's Really Really Bad? The advantage of Gladiator, for purposes of my script, is that it's very well known. Even if the 1907 version of Ben-Hur was the most awful example of Roman costuming in film history, it's no good because almost no one has seen it. I haven't seen it, almost no one in my film's audience will even know it exists, and if my "Jason" character were a real person he probably wouldn't have seen it either. So if I'm to replace Gladiator with another movie title that screws up its Roman costumes, it should be a title that a lot of people will recognize.
2. The words "he's even wearing the sword right" are just an example for now, because I just don't know what sort of details Hollywood routinely fouls up. The detail should be something that both my short film characters could see and that the film audience can see. The characters will have several seconds to look at him from two or three meters away, then a brief peek as they walk past him as close as one meter.
The audience will see the character in a shot from the characters' points of view. He'll be a part of a crowd, but he'll stand out because he's the only one dressed like a Roman soldier. It's possible that he'll get a close-up shot that looks him over head to toe, but that depends on the director, the editor, and how the timing of the scene plays out. Although the characters will be looking him over, it seems more likely that he won't get that sort of close-up shot, or that the shot will end up in the DVD's "Deleted Scenes" section.
3. I don't mean to limit commentary to the selection of movie to pick on or the part of the costume they'd admire for being surprisingly correct. If anyone wants to suggest something else for the scene, I welcome it.
