Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

remember at the end of beowolf when he cuts his arm off to stab his sons heart but he cant then he loses his sword and grabs his sons heart and rips it anyways why did he cut his arm off in the first place?

It's a animated action/adventure movie, loosely based on a legend from the Dark Ages. If your looking for logic then your looking in the wrong place.

Nobody really cares about realism in an action movie. 300 and Die Hard 4.0 are pretty damn illogical, but nobody cares because they don't come to see logic or a complex story, they come to see things getting blown up or smashed to pieces.

What's so illogical about 300? The Spartans fought a delaying action in a ridiculously narrow pass that their opponent had the idiocy to let themselves get funneled into.

Now on Die-Hard 4.0, you nailed it pretty straight on. Isn't that the one where he jumps off a plane onto an upturned section of road?

None of these "action movie" excuses stop me from saying HUH?

The scene where he cuts his arm off made absolutely no sense, and I was actually thinking of making drawings to explain why, but it was just to obvious to merit the work.

HUH???

Anyway, only splatterfests can get away from realism entirely in my book, action movies are just way better when the technical kinks are worked out; that way everyone can enjoy the movie.

On this same note why the feth are movies so loud now?

It hasn't always been like this, and quite honestly there should be some sort of warning like "This movie can actually damage your hearing when viewed in the theater".

Hollywood needs to care a bit more, and take just a bit more pride in what they do; relying on CGI shows me that profits are much much much more important to most studios than making a really good movie.

grizgrin wrote:What's so illogical about 300? The Spartans fought a delaying action in a ridiculously narrow pass that their opponent had the idiocy to let themselves get funneled into.

That a legion of heavy infantry known for their heavy armour decide to go to war in nothing but their undies, just to show off their rippling muscles.

That after one combat where they engage in proper phalanx tactics, they get bored of that and spend the rest of the movie killing people with spins and pirouettes, all of which would be highly impractical except the enemy are standing there and not fighting back, presumably because they know they're only extras destined to be slaughtered so why bother?

It's not a very logical movie. It's a piece of stylised violence and there's nothing wrong with that, but I think we need to remember exactly how silly it all was.




When it comes to Beowulf, just because it's an animated action and adventure movie doesn't mean it's immune to making sense. It's obviously going to stretch reality a bit, but it should do so in ways that fit the story and don't break suspension of disbelief. The magical stretching arm was one of the problems with that movie.

Braveheart is pretty good, so is Gladiator in terms of realism.

Classic warfare relied heavily on teamwork, to a degree that cannot be compared directly to tactics now.

After all guns kind of changed things.

Wrexasaur wrote:Braveheart is pretty good, so is Gladiator in terms of realism.

In terms of the fighting, or the movie? Because while Braveheart may be one of the most fun fantasy movies around, it's also one of the worst historical movies of all time.

I mean, when you're portraying the battle of Stirling Bridge and don't do the research to find out a bridge was involved, you've got trouble.

The fighting of course, I thought my funny hat already merited my lack of history lessons.

His arm was pinned if I remember right. He couldn't reach what he was trying to reach with his arm holding it back.

Wrexasaur wrote:The fighting of course, I thought my funny hat already merited my lack of history lessons.

Yeah, the fighting was certainly awesome. I think it was the first film to show so much brutality in combat. People in movies had been losing limbs for a while, but I don't think any action films showed so much gore that, did they?

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Braveheart is pretty good, so is Gladiator in terms of realism.

In terms of the fighting, or the movie? Because while Braveheart may be one of the most fun fantasy movies around, it's also one of the worst historical movies of all time.

I mean, when you're portraying the battle of Stirling Bridge and don't do the research to find out a bridge was involved, you've got trouble.

Not to mention the Duchess of York was only 12 at the time all that happened, and there was no such thing as "The right of Prima Nocto". Among other things..I can't rememebr.

Still one of my all time favorite movies.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Not to mention the Duchess of York was only 12 at the time all that happened, and there was no such thing as "The right of Prima Nocto". Among other things..I can't rememebr.

Still one of my all time favorite movies.

GG

Yeah, and Wallace's invasion of England went nowhere near York. At Falkirk the Irish didn't switch sides (there were hardly any there anyway), nor did the Welsh. After Falkirk Wallace didn't hide in the highlands, but went to appeal for support in Rome.

But like you said, still a cool movie. One of the worst historical movies of all time, but also one of the best fantasy movies.

And Mel Gibson wasn't even anywhere near Scotland at the time.

sebster wrote:

grizgrin wrote:What's so illogical about 300? The Spartans fought a delaying action in a ridiculously narrow pass that their opponent had the idiocy to let themselves get funneled into.

That a legion of heavy infantry known for their heavy armour decide to go to war in nothing but their undies, just to show off their rippling muscles.

The History Channel said they wouldn't have worn the underwear at all. You complain they had to little clothing on and they complain they had to much. Good grief.

generalgrog wrote:Not to mention the Duchess of York was only 12 at the time all that happened

That's hot and totally changes the movie.

malfred wrote:And Mel Gibson wasn't even anywhere near Scotland at the time.

And Peter Jackson wasn't anywhere Middle Earth from what my sources tell me.

I really like Neil Gaiman's work, but I did like this movie at all. Turning Beowulf into a hero with horrid faults was unforgivable.

Ahtman wrote:The History Channel said they wouldn't have worn the underwear at all. You complain they had to little clothing on and they complain they had to much. Good grief.

Trust me over the History Channel. Not because I'm any kind of expert, because I'm not. Because you should trust the old lady down the road who went to the Middle East and bought a piece of the True Cross over the History Channel. Because you should trust the nine year old in the GW store who stop talking about how a katana could totally cut through gun barrels and tanks over the History Channel.

But they were starkers in the comic. That would have produced some interesting responses, given how people freaked out over Watchmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

Fun times man. You cannot cut through metal, but you can crack it, the point of real ancient katana (in it's own time) could jam a gun and take the impact of a bullet. Combine that with a trained samurai and there is really no contest in most situations.

20 feet or more expect to get shot at and usually missed because people are seriously bad at shooting these things (in their time, for powder guns) and a good laugh never hurt anyone.

5 feet or less and they might as well be trying to kill you with piss, it just won't end well for them to put it lightly.

The more you know .

"Note"
Any samurai with only one sword is no samurai at all. Any samurai with more that two swords is a ninja that acts like a samurai. Any samurai with a gun is a... oh gak he won...

A samurai with no sword is not worth mentioning because he is already dead or running away from his honor.

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Braveheart is pretty good, so is Gladiator in terms of realism.

In terms of the fighting, or the movie? Because while Braveheart may be one of the most fun fantasy movies around, it's also one of the worst historical movies of all time.

I mean, when you're portraying the battle of Stirling Bridge and don't do the research to find out a bridge was involved, you've got trouble.

They actually did the research and new the bridge was involved. They decided not to use the bridge though, because it got in the way. It was an aesthetic choice, not a lack of research.

Another reason why Braveheart is an excellent film, really....it's just not historically accurate.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:The History Channel said they wouldn't have worn the underwear at all. You complain they had to little clothing on and they complain they had to much. Good grief.

Trust me over the History Channel. Not because I'm any kind of expert, because I'm not. Because you should trust the old lady down the road who went to the Middle East and bought a piece of the True Cross over the History Channel. Because you should trust the nine year old in the GW store who stop talking about how a katana could totally cut through gun barrels and tanks over the History Channel.

But they were starkers in the comic. That would have produced some interesting responses, given how people freaked out over Watchmen.

I don't know, they do shows about aliens and ghosts and if that isn't good History, I don't know what is.

Battle scenes aside I hate Braveheart. I mean really really hate it.

It’s the pointless preachy overtones and anti English stuff that just really gets to me I suppose. No to mention that the convenient airbrushing from the fact that Wallace was a wealthy man protecting his own interest who cared little for the 'peasants'.

You know the way we complain that Hollywood always rewrites history? Well this is where the rot set in. It's not a subtle alteration done for artistic licence, which I can live with and even approve of, it's a total travesty of events.

There are people out there, not necessarily Americans but Scottish and English people, who think that this film is a genuine representation of the wars between Scotland and England. I’m proud to say I detest it and everything it stands for.

That is why we have the interwebz where people can look into the history and be brutally reaffirmed in their initial assumptions... hmmm, I am not sure what they were to be honest, the Irish seemed to put up a bit more of a fight than the Scottish; but the English just have better cars.

And then there is the rest of the car world...

And Wallace wasn't called Braveheart, it was Robert the Bruce.

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Braveheart is pretty good, so is Gladiator in terms of realism.

In terms of the fighting, or the movie? Because while Braveheart may be one of the most fun fantasy movies around, it's also one of the worst historical movies of all time.

I mean, when you're portraying the battle of Stirling Bridge and don't do the research to find out a bridge was involved, you've got trouble.

Yea the name kind of gives away a key flaw doesn't it, battle of Sterling Bridge.

Scotland. Hairy guys in skirts ambushing invaders since Ought Six (AD). KERBLAH! BLAH KERBLAH!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:The fighting of course, I thought my funny hat already merited my lack of history lessons.

Yeah, the fighting was certainly awesome. I think it was the first film to show so much brutality in combat. People in movies had been losing limbs for a while, but I don't think any action films showed so much gore that, did they?

Conan the barbarian did, and in a very Teutonic way. Bom bom bom bom...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
And Peter Jackson wasn't anywhere Middle Earth from what my sources tell me.

Have you seen Peter Jackson when he did that movie? He IS Middle Earth. Sir! Step away from the cheetoes and put your hands up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrookM wrote:And Wallace wasn't called Braveheart, it was Robert the Bruce.

Er no, those were different people actually. Robert the Bruce won, then made the mistake of messing with the Irish, because they're MY IRISH!

Moral fo the story, don't feth with guys named "Bob."
http://www.britannia.com/bios/robertbruce.html

Robert I, the Bruce (1274-1329)
Robert Bruce is surely the greatest of all the great Scottish heroes, yet the Hollywood movie Braveheart gave all the heroics to his compatriot William Wallace, making Bruce out to be nothing more than a self-serving opportunist. However, it was the patience and cunning of Bruce that Scotland needed, not the impetuousness of Wallace, especially facing such formidable enemies as the English, first under Edward I and then under his son and heir Edward II. Bruce bided his time; he first had to establish his authority as King of Scotland. By the time of Bannockburn, he was ready.

Earl of Carrick, Robert Bruce was born at Turnberry Castle, Ayrshire, in 1274, of both Norman and Celtic ancestry. Two years before his birth, Edward Plantagenet had become King Edward I of England. The ruthlessness of Edward, who earned the title "the Hammer of the Scots" brought forth the greatness of Bruce whose astonishing victory at Bannockburn in 1314 over the much larger and better-equipped forces of Edward II ensured Scottish freedom from control by the hated English.

This struggle for control of Scotland began when Alexander III died in 1286, leaving as heir his grandchild Margaret, the infant daughter of the King of Norway. English King Edward, with his eye on the complete subjugation of his northern neighbors, suggested that Margaret should marry his son, a desire consummated at a treaty signed and sealed at Birgham. Under the terms, Scotland was to remain a separate and independent kingdom, -- "separate, distinct and free in itself without subjection from the realm of England" --though Edward wished to keep English garrisons in a number of Scottish castles. On her way to Scotland, somewhere in the Orkneys, the young Norwegian princess died, unable to enjoy the consignment of sweetmeats and raisins sent by the English King. The succession was now open to many claimants, the strongest of whom were John Balliol and Robert Bruce.

John Balliol was supported by King Edward, who believed him to be the weaker and more compliant of the two Scottish claimants. Balliol was an English baron belonging to a house with an established tradition of loyalty to the English crown. At a meeting of 104 auditors, with Edward as judge, the decision went in favor of Balliol, who was duly declared to be the rightful king in November 1292. The English king's plans for a peaceful relationship with his northern neighbor now took a different turn. In exchange for his support, Edward demanded that he should have feudal superiority over Scotland, including homage from Balliol, judicial authority over the Scottish king in any disputes brought against him by his own subjects and defrayment of costs for the defence of England as well as active support in the war against France.

Even the weak Balliol could not stomach these outrageous demands. Showing a hitherto unknown courage, in front of the English king he declared that he was the King of Scotland and should answer only to his own people, refusing to supply military service to Edward. The impetuous man then concluded a treaty with France prior to planning an invasion of England.

Edward was ready. He went north to receive homage from a great number of Scottish nobles, as their feudal lord, among them none other than 21 year-old Robert Bruce, who owned estates in England. Balliol immediately punished this treachery by seizing Bruce's lands in Scotland and giving them to his brother-in-law, John Comyn. Yet within a few months, the Scottish king was to disappear from the scene. His army was defeated by Edward at Dunbar in April 1296. Soon after at Brechin, on 10 July, he surrendered his Scottish throne to the English king, who took into his possession the stone of Scone, "the coronation stone" of the Scottish kings. At a parliament, which he summoned at Berwick, the English king received homage and the oath of fealty from over 2,000 Scots. He seemed secure in Scotland.

Flushed with this success, Edward had gone too far. The rising tide of nationalist fervor in the face of the arrival of the English armies north of the border created the need for new Scottish leaders. Following a brawl with English soldiers in the market place at Lanark, a young Scottish knight, William Wallace, after killing an English sheriff found himself at the head of a fast-spreading movement of national resistance. At Stirling Bridge, a Scottish force led by Wallace won an astonishing victory when it completely annihilated a large, lavishly equipped English army under the command of Surrey, Edward I's viceroy.

Yet Wallace's great victory, successful because the English cavalry were unable to maneuver on the marshy ground and their supporting troops had been trapped on a narrow bridge, proved to be a Pyrrhic one. Bringing a large army north in 1298 and goading Wallace to forgo his successful guerrilla campaign into fighting a second pitched battle, the English king's forces were more successful. At Falkirk, they crushed the over-confident Scottish followers of Wallace.

Falkirk was a grievous loss for Wallace who never again found himself in command of a large body of troops. After hiding out for a number of years, he was finally captured in 1305 and brought to London to die a traitor's death similar to that meted out a few years earlier by King Edward to Prince Dafydd ap Gruffudd, Welsh leader of yet another fight for independence from England. With the execution of Wallace, it was time for Robert Bruce, whose heritage as Earl of Carrick made him much more than "a mere Anglo-Norman fish out of water, grassed on a Celtic riverbank" to free himself from his fealty to Edward and to lead the fight for Scotland.

At a meeting in Greyfriar's Kirk at Dumfries between the two surviving claimants for the Scottish throne, the perfidious, but crafty Bruce murdered John Comyn, thus earning the enmity of the many powerful supporters of the Comyn family, but also excommunication from the Church. On March 27, 1306 he declared himself King of Scots. Edward's reply was predictable; he sent a large army north, defeated Bruce at the Battle of Methven, executed many of his supporters and forced the Scottish king into becoming a hunted outlaw.

Once again the indefatigable Scottish leader bided his time. After a year of demoralization and widespread English terror let loose in Scotland, during which two of his brothers were killed, Bruce came out of hiding. Aided mightily by his chief lieutenant, Sir James Douglas, "the Black Douglas" he won a first victory on Palm Sunday 1307. From all over Scotland, the clans answered the call and Bruce's forces gathered in strength to fight the English invaders, winning many encounters against cavalry with his spearmen.

The aging Edward decided to come to Scotland at the head of a large army to punish the Scots' impudence; but the now weak and sick king was ineffectual as a military leader. He could only wish that after his death his bones were to be carried at the head of his army until Scotland had been crushed. It was left to his son Edward II to try to carry out his father's dying wish. He was no man for the task.

Faced by too many problems at home and completely lacking the ruthlessness and resourcefulness of his father, the young Edward had no wish to get embroiled in the affairs of Scotland. Bruce was left alone to consolidate his gains and to punish those who opposed him. A series of successful campaigns against the Comyns and their allies left him in control of most of Scotland. In 1309 he was recognized as sole ruler by the French King and despite his earlier excommunication, even received the support of the Scottish Church. Thus emboldened, in 1311 Bruce drove out the English garrisons in all their Scottish strongholds except Stirling and invaded northern England. King Edward bestirred himself from his dalliances at Court to respond and took a large army north.

On Mid-Summer's Day, the 24th of June 1314 one of the most momentous battles in British history occurred. The armies of Robert Bruce heavily outnumbered by their English rivals, but employing tactics that prevented the English army from effectively employing its strength, won a decisive victory at Bannockburn. Scotland was wrenched from English control, its armies free to invade and harass northern England. Such was Bruce's military successes that he was able to invade Ireland, where his brother Edward had been crowned King by the exuberant Irish. A second expedition carried out by Edward II north of the border was driven back. Edward was forced to seek peace.

Robert Bruce followed up his outstanding military success by equally successful diplomatic overtures. After an appeal from the Scottish nobility even Bruce's excommunication was lifted by the new Pope at Rome. In May 1328 a peace treaty was signed at Northampton by the weary, helpless English king that recognized Scotland as an independent kingdom and Robert Bruce as king. The Declaration of Independence signed at Arbroath was the culmination of Bruce's career. All his dreams fulfilled, he died one year later. One who for years had been an Anglo-Norman vassal of the King of England had made himself into a truly national Scottish hero.

Under the Declaration, if Robert Bruce were to prove weak enough to acknowledge Edward as overlord, then he would be dismissed in favor of someone else. English kings still continued to call themselves rulers of Scotland, just as they called themselves rulers of France for centuries after being booted out of the continent, but Scotland remained fully independent until 1603 (when James Stuart succeeded Elizabeth i).

If Robert Bruce had done no more than defy the power of King Edward, restore the Scottish monarchy and win at Bannockburn, he would still be listed among the giants, but he did more. His view of his nation was truly international. Under the rule of the one who was later to be known as "Good King Robert," Scotland had become the first nation state in Europe, the first to have territorial unity under a single king. Contained in the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320 was a letter to the Pope, who had excommunicated everyone in Scotland unless they swore allegiance to Edward II (such were the ways of medieval popes). In the letter, signed by representatives from all classes of Scots society, it was stated that since ancient times the Scots had been free to choose their own kings, a freedom that was a gift from God. And so it was, but a gift that had needed a Robert Bruce to deliver.

sebster wrote:

grizgrin wrote:What's so illogical about 300? The Spartans fought a delaying action in a ridiculously narrow pass that their opponent had the idiocy to let themselves get funneled into.

That a legion of heavy infantry known for their heavy armour decide to go to war in nothing but their undies, just to show off their rippling muscles.

That after one combat where they engage in proper phalanx tactics, they get bored of that and spend the rest of the movie killing people with spins and pirouettes, all of which would be highly impractical except the enemy are standing there and not fighting back, presumably because they know they're only extras destined to be slaughtered so why bother?

And Leonidas has the gak to tell the hunchback that he can´t fight with the 300 because he would be unable to protect his mates Probably he was wondering too why the poor bastard turned traitor.

M.

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:The fighting of course, I thought my funny hat already merited my lack of history lessons.

Yeah, the fighting was certainly awesome. I think it was the first film to show so much brutality in combat. People in movies had been losing limbs for a while, but I don't think any action films showed so much gore that, did they?

Well Mel Gibson loves gore. If you don't believe that, just watch "The Passion" I don't understand his fascination with blood and guts.


GG

I thought he was just an anti-semitic?

BrookM wrote:I thought he was just an anti-semitic?

I hope this is a joke.

BrookM wrote:I thought he was just an anti-semitic?

Ahtman wrote:

BrookM wrote:I thought he was just an anti-semitic?

I hope this is a joke.