Regarding the helmets, here's a summary of Ridley Scott's answer to a question about the helmets during the Cannes press conference for the film: That helmet design was a deliberate, conscious choice by Ridley Scott, who imagined and wanted them exactly this way for aesthetic purposes - literally just because he though it "looked good". He then told everyone who dared to raise doubts or inform him that they'd be a moronic near-suicidal choice for a fight that starts on horseback with lances to sod off, because it was his movie. I don't know if his long career with frequent sojourns in "the Middle Ages" have at this point culminated in him thinking he knows better than anyone else and especially what he likely considers to be an uninformed and desinterested audience, but the way he was visibly annoyed that someone even dared to raise a question regarding that ludicrous headgear sounded like a serious case of Grumpy Old Man Syndrome at that moment.
That's not the complete reason. He also said that they tried to follow initially the historical descriptions for the armour but it was extremely difficult for the actors to have any mobility in them. So they changed them to be more suitable for them. Now, because the armours themselves were not historically accurate anymore, he decided to have a creative and aesthetic pass also for the helmets. That is why he chose these designs. It's not about him thinking that he knows better but it's more about him taking a decision as a director and as an artist seeing how the first option, the historical one, was not available anymore
@@karimrashidpour9378 I don’t think he really did any actual research into arms and armor if this is the case. The armor they tried using was probably either poorly fitted or made incorrectly. Actual 14th century armor really isn’t that hard to move around in, and isn’t all that uncomfortable (if it’s fitted correctly that is). The only difficulty in terms of mobility they would run into is if they were using great helms. But even then they could have used visor-less hounskulls, or raised visor bascinets and still had it be period accurate / look good, and show the actors faces. Another strange thing that makes their decision of not using historical pieces instead of fantastical / mismatched pieces due to their “weight” or “immobility” unlikely, is that they could have used lightweight materials instead of steel. (Although the armor weight really isn’t that bad, and mobility wouldn’t be an issue). I think that it is more likely that when they made this movie, they knew that the majority of people watching it wouldn’t be knit picking the historical accuracy of the armor being used (since most people don’t know too much about the topic anyways). It’s also cheaper to make what they have the actors wearing, rather than fitted historical pieces. Or as previously stated, they probably just don’t know enough about historical armor / didn’t research it, and the attempts from the costume department were probably lead by misconceptions about how armors of the period were meant to look / function. All of these factors probably contributed to be honest. But if they had followed actual armor designs of the time, I have little doubt there wouldn’t be very many complaints from anyone over how it fitted, or it inhibiting movement.
There are videos of guys rolling and jumping around in realistic medieval full plate armor. Actual armor would also have been designed to allow mobility doing the same kinds of things the actors would be doing and I imagine the costumes they would use wouldn't be using as heavy materials.
@@sungodra1226 ironic how the director is lashing out at the apparent audience for the movie to flop and accusing them of not wanting to learn - but to this end makes such glaring inaccuracies in terms of the armor.. I wont nitpick, I liked the movie and the settings were beautiful.
Yes, more of this please, it's nice to hear from someone who actually studied the subject, and actually worked with surviving artifacts. Pity with the helmets. Ridley Scott could have had them simply raise their visors, as we are often shown in artwork like manuscript illustrations. Or could have gone the Marvel's Iron Man route, when they showed Robert Downey Jr.'s face inside the helmet. Also I dislike this trend of muted colors. Even for a cloudy winter's day, this is far too dark and desaturated.
Good points, especially the the one about Iron Man helmet shots. I would add the suggestion to use distinct enough helmets and armor to make it clear who is who in other scenes. They managed to pull that off quite well in _Knight's story,_ I think, where the main antagonist had gear that stood out so we could recognize him even with his helmet and (full) visor. More saturated colours could help too. It's much harder to distinguish heraldic clues in the gear when everything is grey.
Why can't they just use the correct arms and armour from the period?! It's not as if it doesn't look good, it does! Better than this mish-mash of periods and pure fantasy.
I think a they have to make use of a few things that are available in an allotted time frame . It take way longer to make everything ftom scratch thats completely historically accurate. The story is of the duel not the equipment used during the time period.
It's not that easy. You need time and permission to use the correct armour especially. But the biggest problem of all is that the armour is a big problem for the actors. In fact, Ridley Scott said that they tried to follow the exact same description of the books and of the historical recountings but Adam Driver and Matt Demon could barely move in the original armour. So they decided to change the armour design and to choose them more based on aesthetics than historical accuracy
@@karimrashidpour9378 that's all nonsense sorry. I know more than a bit about medieval armour, it's not so restrictive anyone can "barely move". That's just an old Hollywood trope for lazy costumes. Permission? WTF are you on about?
@@TheAegisClaw agreed. I've been making armour for nearly 30 years. With today's technology, for the sake of the actors, they could make plastic reproductions that looked exactly like historical pieces. At least they could have made accurate harness for the two main characters, and if done properly would not have hindered movement.
I really think that experts need to be more harsh and critic with this kind of films for their inconsistencies and inacurate, if not the film industry will continues to deliver just fantasy content in a "real story" or historical event movies. If I want to see a fantasy armor I will see LotR and not "a true story" movie. Great format by the way, I really love the content that is delivering the museums, cheers.
One thing I will say. Is that this happens everywhere, not just in 'far flung past' pieces. Some things are done artistically, some things are done because they don't have a full experts. And even if it's a passion project, sometimes certain things slip a director's mind for accuracy, or budget gets away for the cost of what hiring an expert for props alone can be. Even big name directors don't always have the budget (or consider it initially in the budget) for the high accuracy research beyond the most important parts. And you have to remember the term "Based on" when taking things into account. Not everything is Black Hawk Down or Band of Brothers in the level of accuracies. And I'm not even saying that because they're things that have happened in the last 30-80 years with high documentation. There are plenty of war movies that are based on true events that get massive numbers of things wrong on the details because it's about the story and the action/spectacle more than anything.
One of the things I loved about the movie Dredd (2012) was that Karl Urban (Judge Dredd) never took off his helmet to show his face. I would love if they kept their helmets on in battles in movies such as these. There are other ways to identify who is who than showing their faces.
I get where you're coming from, but with the character Judge Dredd, the helmet is his face in a way. You know exactly who he is when you see the helmet because it embodies his cold cruel form of justice. In films showing combat in the mediaeval period, however, helms are fairly universal and the men (of the same region) who can afford the latest fashion and technology will tend to be wearing very similar helms. Nobles were identified by the heraldry on their shield, armour, standard, and so forth, but modern audiences aren't keyed into heraldry as an identifier. So film-makers, for better or for worse, are forced to make the faces of key characters visible by some artifice or other. Now a character like The Mountain in Game of Thrones is an exception because his physical presence makes him instantly recognisable with or without his face being visible.
@@Auriflamme I was mainly talking about the juducial combat part of the movie with only two characters in armour. I don't know how involved the other combat scenes are.
There isn't really a good reason to have the silly half visor or to make the fighters' lose their helmets halfway through the fight; if they had been wearing historically accurate bascinets, with the visors removed or up, their faces would have been just as visible as if they were wearing the historically inaccurate coifs. It's weird to see this from Ridley Scott considering that one of the best historical films ever made was his first feature film, "The Duelists" and the armor was considerably more accurate for the time period in "Kingdom of Heaven", which is one of the few movies that depicts coifs correctly. Granted, there's no need to do coifs at all if you give the characters bascinets with aventails.
I agree and notice how Matt Damon's character has a scar on his face on the same side as the open side of the helm, tells you all you need yo know about it.
Can this become a thing? It was so refreshing to see a take on a trailer that wasn't, "look at all the inaccuracies", but more, "here's what you would normally expect, but they've probably done this so you can see the actors faces". Really well presented and cool to see where you've mapped bits of the trailer to the arms you have on display or around Yorkshire!
What surprises me is that the helmet choice was made by the same guy that made the duellists, it was in fact his first film and the historical accuracy in that one is completely stunning.
Good point, I had not made that connection. The duelists looked perfectly accurate. If you compare it to some French duels, we have on film from the early 20th century.
There are plenty of people out there who know enough about medieval arms and armour to get seriously irked by those silly helmets (myself included). That just makes it even better to see a review from someone with the level of advanced expertise where they can spot exactly which examples the prop makers used as references and gently school them for accidentally copying a 14th century Yorkshireman's heraldry. Brilliant stuff.
Why is everyone complaining about the half-face helmet, it has a very clear historical precedent. See Voltan (Jack Palance) in the Hawk the Slayer film of 1980.
I'd love to see a Medieval equivalent of Jonathan Ferguson's videogame firearm review videos from the Armouries. Discussing weapons, armour, perhaps even elements of castles.
The opening scene has also been released with better images of the armour. Also talk to Jonathan F about how to get the audio quality better but it doesn't affect me hearing.
At the 16 seconds pause the banners show both France Ancient and France Modern. France Modern came into use in 1376, the film is ostensibly set in 1386 so the banners of France Ancient would definitely not have been in use. A black snake on a green field isn't heraldic at all - Le Gris's Arms were a green snake on a silver field [heraldic terms 'translated' for ease of reading]. It really isn't hard to get such things right, especially as you are going to make these banners anyway!
Absolutely love this format on the Royal Armouries! As a fellow northerner just wanted to say how informative and entertaining you are Ellie. Maybe just get Jonathan to lend you his mic from the Gamespot videos though!
Not to shade another channel but this is just better explained than HistoryHits attempt. Public trials by combat for example, they implied barely anyone would show up but tons of folks might be directly invested in the outcome, especially if it's two major nobles going at it. Thank you for the great explanation!
I've never heard of a half helmet before, especially in the tilt? TROY did this with the Greek helmets so we could see Brad Pitt's face, really annoying
Personally, I wish that film makers would quit with this "the audience want to see the faces of the actors" for fight scenes, because no we do not, I would much prefer to see the combatants with historically correct armour and weapons. Make the colours as bright as they should be and it would have been easy to tell them apart as one is wearing red and the other blue. If they were honest, it is more the egos of the modern actors that they are catering to. An example of how it should have been done is the duel scene in the 1952 film Ivanhoe, where by no means perfect, the combatants at least wore proper helmets during the duel, and the audience had not problem telling them apart as they were wearing different (and bright) colours. The two actors, Robert Taylor and George Sanders, were well know actors of the time.
They could just as well have used paper bags with holes cut into them for helmets and saved some money on the props. Sounds more like a Kurosowa remake anyway.
Very enjoyable content, glad to hear a review with facts but letting the viewer decide for themselves how much emotion and judgement to add for the inaccuracies. Muted colours being an annoyance? It's Ridley Scott, who exactly is surprised? Random P.S. if you saw Kingdom of Heaven and hated it, I bet you saw the short version. If you did; the director's cut is a daunting length, but I promise, there's so much more storytelling and character build in it that it feels shorter, and it makes for a much better film experience, so give it a shot!
8.56 a Rondel dagger is used by the sword hand and wouldn't be worn as a cross draw. And it would be really awkward to use in combat as you can't modify your grip. They were used by travellers to fend off robbers.
The is no reason to use a rondel dagger in unarmored combat. That what things like bollock daggers where for. Rondel daggers are specifically made to generate a lot of pressure to penetrate weaker parts of the armor, hence the disk.
We don't really want to see their faces. It's rather that actors like to have their faces onscreen because emoting is part of their acting, and film promoters like the faces of highly paid stars on screen because it helps sell the film. The audience however don't really care.
I thinner Ridely is missing a great change here. We se Damon and Adams faces constantly for 2.5 hours - realistic helmets would have made a better point to sale this as a deadly serious fight. I call this lazy filmmaking
You seem to have glossed over pretty quickly o. The maIt is very unfortunate that the resn criticism of the movie; It looks realistic enough (if not entirely period correct) to emphasize the idiotic half-face helmets. It just kills the immersion for anyone with half decent knowledge in medieval combat... And Ridley Scott is now pestering about millenials because his film bombed, refusing to see that it was aimed at medieval enthusiasts who were expecting another Kingdom of Heaven, but who are unable to watch this because of the ridiculous half-faced helmets...
Read and enjoyed the book some time ago but the silly half-visors and later complete lack of helmets in this film is a deal breaker for me. Especially disappointing in comparison to the recent Netflix film The King where both actors wore fully enclosed helmets during the Prince Hal vs Hotspur duel.
These are good explanations for the reasons all these things are unrealistic, but it is frustrating when so much of these unrealistic things are entirely unnecessary. Imagine a WWII movie with gear from the late Cold War. Let's not normalize coddling filmakers about these details.
The maille is frayed because it appears to be butted construction. Great breakdown, though. I cringed when I saw the half-visors. When are movie producers going to realize putting historically accurate armour in their movies just as cool as this fantasy altered armour?
This was a great movie everything Scott makes is good but the helmets are ridiculous. I actually own a 14 century close helmet an original and nobody in their right mind would have jousted in a helmet like that.
3 роки тому+5
every film with adam driver in it kind of needs an introduction or a narration by john oliver
'Really Great, real interesting' depiction of how the age was all a dull mostly grey and people were all filthy and smelly. And knights wore only bits of armour so we could see their smiling faces as they got a dagger thru their exposed face. Historical accuracy at Hollywoodland's most accurate. p.s. - the blonde protagonist 'lady' would not have had her hair uncovered, as it was a sign of promiscuity that would have made her look even more guilty of lying.
Glad to see more of these style videos from this channel, keep it up. Everyone has mentioned the microphone/room accoustics already, but Id also recommend having prep done for the videos, so they're less like a generic react video, and more of a review/discussion video. Thanks x
Great content and I forsee success in this channel, but please hire a sound guy or put out a listing for sound equipment setup and sound advice for free tickets. I bet there are some local people that would gladly help you setup something better for your videos. I see a lot of potential subs and view boost but for it to really take off Ya'll could use help from some a/v peeps and perhaps some donated equipment and software.
As former reenactor and armour maker, I hate inaccurate armour, especially those in Ridley Scott movies. That man seems to be obsessed by inaccurate portrayel of armour and weapons, like the Roman stuff in Gladiator. It's a shame, because it's so easy to do it right. I really can't watch The last Duel, because of the stupid half-visors.... Grow up Ridley, grow up, Hollywood.
Ridley Scott should definitely have used Terry English for the armor in the movie, rather than someone who is know for historical inaccuracies in the portrayal of medieval costumes. I totally support the vision of Ridley Scott, but I also think it could be even better if he'd used a proper expert rather than someone who thinks they know what looks good. And just to specify something about what another commenter has mentioned several times (that the first version of the armors were impossible to use): If the main actors had to have their armor changed because it was uncomfortable or impossible to act in, that's totally the fault of costumer who designed the fantasy version of their armor, and not how real armors worked. It should be blamed on Janty Yates and Ridley Scott, and not that medieval armors were inherently impossible to move in. If Terry English were the one supplying the armors, the main actors would have gotten bespoke armors that would have fitted them perfectly (as they would have been made originally too). It's really cool that Eleanor mentions that WETA makes the best "movie chainmail" too 😇
Tim Lewis was "master armourer" for this shameful show. He "masterarmoured" "armours" for Netflix "Cursed" series, and now is working on "House of Dragons".
This was such a good thing! El you need to get a better microphone. And I support Trial by combat. If you talk shit on twitter you should be able to get called out.
The duel that inspired this film pretty illustrates a big problem with Trial by Combat- a lot of the contemporary sources suggest that Carrouges made up the allegations against Le Gris because he had a longstanding grudge against him and knew he was a more experienced fighter than him so thought he would probably win the fight. If you were hard enough you could just go around legally murdering people you didn't like.
@@chrisball3778 I do agree that solving arguments by trial of combat is slightly archaic. I do however think if a pair of idiots want to sort it out that way, well why not. Judge should just give them an order and they can face off.
It's so upsetting that they wear (for Hollywood standards) pretty accurate mail coifs... that are a good 100 years too late. Yes the shaping is not perfect but they include the ventail which is excellent, it's just sad that they wore those stupid sallets with half-visors over mail coifs. Pick a century! And for God's sake they picked the wrong ones, Sallets are 15th century, and coifs are 13th!
Quite a positive community response, looks like Jonathan has some more company amongst the æthereal realm of internet arms expertise >:) Just wish Jonathan and The_Chieftain met up...that would be...and if Ian walked in on that meeting...I think if that occurred, a blinding light would appear between the three of them, from which the sword Excalibur would appear triumphantly lol The Council of Good Natured Weapons and Armour Experts 🤣
never ever use a built-in cam or laptop mic... you move your head 5cm and change the output by 2digit dezibel numbers... great knowledge, great content but you really need audio upgrades... even your phone headset would do better, no offense!
#1 pausing #2 Ben Affleck's facial hair #3 it makes sense that Peter Jackson would make fake mail armour #4 horses probably don't like horses in armour. I'd imagine it's like when you dress up a dog in a costume. #5 wacky helmets #6 Kylo Ren was a jerk but at least he wasn't a gross creep
Please consider doing this type of content in a prepared discussion or lecture format. Jonathan also did one of these and it's just not a compelling format.
What an excellent presentation by a person with knowledge and presence. Not a note in sight, very proffesional work. Other presenters on the channel shoukld take lessons.
After how comically flawed scotts movies often are( like cate blanchetts and lost boys attack on french knights in robin hood lol) this one seems much better , still a movie but i liked it overall
How disappointing. I don't expect to hear a curator at the Royal Armouries making excuses for the film-makers' use of innaccurate, and sometimes ludicrous, arms and armour.
The laughable half helmets in this movie destroyed any notion that this movie would be realistic. The movie "Dredd" showed that you don't need to see an actor's face all the time. Audiences are not stupid. We can deal with not being able to see an actor's face for a minute or two when he's in a duel. It's not as if their expressions are important during a fight - if the actors have done their job in the lead-up to it, we should already know everything we need to know. The stupidity here is all on the part of whoever decided to ruin what could have been a realistic movie in this way.
Thank you very much for this review. It shows convincingly that the film is rubbish and I am not going to see it in any shape or form. It has saved me some time, money and most importantly, nerves. You can see a better representation of medieval combat if you watch one of hundreds of reenactment clips available for free on UA-cam.
It’s a dramatic film, not a documentary about medieval combat. Lighten up and get over yourself. Movies aren’t accurate. Never have been, never will be, never have intended to be. They’re much better for ignoring “accuracy” for the sake of entertainment. How many 2 hour long UA-cam reenactment videos do you sit on the edge of your seat through?
Love hearing experts opinions on this, but you'd benifit a lot from a better microphone/room to record in
Better than nothing lol
@@tufftraveller4784 oh yeah I'm glad to have this, just saying I struggled to understand some parts due to mic quality
Yeah would love if she had same kind of setup as big j
@@daweqa2406 Big J. XD
@@MetalGamer666 yeah Jonathan has his setup in order. She should ask to use that setup
Regarding the helmets, here's a summary of Ridley Scott's answer to a question about the helmets during the Cannes press conference for the film: That helmet design was a deliberate, conscious choice by Ridley Scott, who imagined and wanted them exactly this way for aesthetic purposes - literally just because he though it "looked good". He then told everyone who dared to raise doubts or inform him that they'd be a moronic near-suicidal choice for a fight that starts on horseback with lances to sod off, because it was his movie.
I don't know if his long career with frequent sojourns in "the Middle Ages" have at this point culminated in him thinking he knows better than anyone else and especially what he likely considers to be an uninformed and desinterested audience, but the way he was visibly annoyed that someone even dared to raise a question regarding that ludicrous headgear sounded like a serious case of Grumpy Old Man Syndrome at that moment.
That's not the complete reason. He also said that they tried to follow initially the historical descriptions for the armour but it was extremely difficult for the actors to have any mobility in them. So they changed them to be more suitable for them. Now, because the armours themselves were not historically accurate anymore, he decided to have a creative and aesthetic pass also for the helmets. That is why he chose these designs. It's not about him thinking that he knows better but it's more about him taking a decision as a director and as an artist seeing how the first option, the historical one, was not available anymore
@@karimrashidpour9378 I don’t think he really did any actual research into arms and armor if this is the case. The armor they tried using was probably either poorly fitted or made incorrectly. Actual 14th century armor really isn’t that hard to move around in, and isn’t all that uncomfortable (if it’s fitted correctly that is). The only difficulty in terms of mobility they would run into is if they were using great helms. But even then they could have used visor-less hounskulls, or raised visor bascinets and still had it be period accurate / look good, and show the actors faces.
Another strange thing that makes their decision of not using historical pieces instead of fantastical / mismatched pieces due to their “weight” or “immobility” unlikely, is that they could have used lightweight materials instead of steel. (Although the armor weight really isn’t that bad, and mobility wouldn’t be an issue).
I think that it is more likely that when they made this movie, they knew that the majority of people watching it wouldn’t be knit picking the historical accuracy of the armor being used (since most people don’t know too much about the topic anyways). It’s also cheaper to make what they have the actors wearing, rather than fitted historical pieces. Or as previously stated, they probably just don’t know enough about historical armor / didn’t research it, and the attempts from the costume department were probably lead by misconceptions about how armors of the period were meant to look / function. All of these factors probably contributed to be honest. But if they had followed actual armor designs of the time, I have little doubt there wouldn’t be very many complaints from anyone over how it fitted, or it inhibiting movement.
There are videos of guys rolling and jumping around in realistic medieval full plate armor. Actual armor would also have been designed to allow mobility doing the same kinds of things the actors would be doing and I imagine the costumes they would use wouldn't be using as heavy materials.
@@sungodra1226 ironic how the director is lashing out at the apparent audience for the movie to flop and accusing them of not wanting to learn - but to this end makes such glaring inaccuracies in terms of the armor.. I wont nitpick, I liked the movie and the settings were beautiful.
@@sungodra1226 Totally agree with all of this. Good comment.
Yes, more of this please, it's nice to hear from someone who actually studied the subject, and actually worked with surviving artifacts.
Pity with the helmets.
Ridley Scott could have had them simply raise their visors, as we are often shown in artwork like manuscript illustrations.
Or could have gone the Marvel's Iron Man route, when they showed Robert Downey Jr.'s face inside the helmet.
Also I dislike this trend of muted colors. Even for a cloudy winter's day, this is far too dark and desaturated.
Good points, especially the the one about Iron Man helmet shots. I would add the suggestion to use distinct enough helmets and armor to make it clear who is who in other scenes. They managed to pull that off quite well in _Knight's story,_ I think, where the main antagonist had gear that stood out so we could recognize him even with his helmet and (full) visor.
More saturated colours could help too. It's much harder to distinguish heraldic clues in the gear when everything is grey.
Why can't they just use the correct arms and armour from the period?! It's not as if it doesn't look good, it does! Better than this mish-mash of periods and pure fantasy.
Always my question as well. It's not like the information isn't literally at their fingertips.
I think a they have to make use of a few things that are available in an allotted time frame . It take way longer to make everything ftom scratch thats completely historically accurate. The story is of the duel not the equipment used during the time period.
It's not that easy. You need time and permission to use the correct armour especially. But the biggest problem of all is that the armour is a big problem for the actors. In fact, Ridley Scott said that they tried to follow the exact same description of the books and of the historical recountings but Adam Driver and Matt Demon could barely move in the original armour. So they decided to change the armour design and to choose them more based on aesthetics than historical accuracy
@@karimrashidpour9378 that's all nonsense sorry. I know more than a bit about medieval armour, it's not so restrictive anyone can "barely move". That's just an old Hollywood trope for lazy costumes. Permission? WTF are you on about?
@@TheAegisClaw agreed. I've been making armour for nearly 30 years. With today's technology, for the sake of the actors, they could make plastic reproductions that looked exactly like historical pieces. At least they could have made accurate harness for the two main characters, and if done properly would not have hindered movement.
Adoring RA getting in more on this format of things. Wonderful stuff.
I really think that experts need to be more harsh and critic with this kind of films for their inconsistencies and inacurate, if not the film industry will continues to deliver just fantasy content in a "real story" or historical event movies. If I want to see a fantasy armor I will see LotR and not "a true story" movie.
Great format by the way, I really love the content that is delivering the museums, cheers.
One thing I will say. Is that this happens everywhere, not just in 'far flung past' pieces. Some things are done artistically, some things are done because they don't have a full experts. And even if it's a passion project, sometimes certain things slip a director's mind for accuracy, or budget gets away for the cost of what hiring an expert for props alone can be. Even big name directors don't always have the budget (or consider it initially in the budget) for the high accuracy research beyond the most important parts. And you have to remember the term "Based on" when taking things into account. Not everything is Black Hawk Down or Band of Brothers in the level of accuracies. And I'm not even saying that because they're things that have happened in the last 30-80 years with high documentation. There are plenty of war movies that are based on true events that get massive numbers of things wrong on the details because it's about the story and the action/spectacle more than anything.
I have to agree
Maybe but the facts that sometimes the inaccurancy is intended. They don't care.
One of the things I loved about the movie Dredd (2012) was that Karl Urban (Judge Dredd) never took off his helmet to show his face. I would love if they kept their helmets on in battles in movies such as these. There are other ways to identify who is who than showing their faces.
I get where you're coming from, but with the character Judge Dredd, the helmet is his face in a way. You know exactly who he is when you see the helmet because it embodies his cold cruel form of justice. In films showing combat in the mediaeval period, however, helms are fairly universal and the men (of the same region) who can afford the latest fashion and technology will tend to be wearing very similar helms. Nobles were identified by the heraldry on their shield, armour, standard, and so forth, but modern audiences aren't keyed into heraldry as an identifier. So film-makers, for better or for worse, are forced to make the faces of key characters visible by some artifice or other. Now a character like The Mountain in Game of Thrones is an exception because his physical presence makes him instantly recognisable with or without his face being visible.
@@Auriflamme I was mainly talking about the juducial combat part of the movie with only two characters in armour. I don't know how involved the other combat scenes are.
There isn't really a good reason to have the silly half visor or to make the fighters' lose their helmets halfway through the fight; if they had been wearing historically accurate bascinets, with the visors removed or up, their faces would have been just as visible as if they were wearing the historically inaccurate coifs. It's weird to see this from Ridley Scott considering that one of the best historical films ever made was his first feature film, "The Duelists" and the armor was considerably more accurate for the time period in "Kingdom of Heaven", which is one of the few movies that depicts coifs correctly. Granted, there's no need to do coifs at all if you give the characters bascinets with aventails.
I agree and notice how Matt Damon's character has a scar on his face on the same side as the open side of the helm, tells you all you need yo know about it.
so historically accurate, Royal Armouries even has a microphone from 1410
Can this become a thing? It was so refreshing to see a take on a trailer that wasn't, "look at all the inaccuracies", but more, "here's what you would normally expect, but they've probably done this so you can see the actors faces".
Really well presented and cool to see where you've mapped bits of the trailer to the arms you have on display or around Yorkshire!
What surprises me is that the helmet choice was made by the same guy that made the duellists, it was in fact his first film and the historical accuracy in that one is completely stunning.
Good point, I had not made that connection. The duelists looked perfectly accurate. If you compare it to some French duels, we have on film from the early 20th century.
There are plenty of people out there who know enough about medieval arms and armour to get seriously irked by those silly helmets (myself included). That just makes it even better to see a review from someone with the level of advanced expertise where they can spot exactly which examples the prop makers used as references and gently school them for accidentally copying a 14th century Yorkshireman's heraldry. Brilliant stuff.
Why didn't they just approach the Royal Armouries in the first place and get things right?
Well they should really have approached their French equivalent
Why is everyone complaining about the half-face helmet, it has a very clear historical precedent.
See Voltan (Jack Palance) in the Hawk the Slayer film of 1980.
I'd love to see a Medieval equivalent of Jonathan Ferguson's videogame firearm review videos from the Armouries. Discussing weapons, armour, perhaps even elements of castles.
The opening scene has also been released with better images of the armour. Also talk to Jonathan F about how to get the audio quality better but it doesn't affect me hearing.
At the 16 seconds pause the banners show both France Ancient and France Modern. France Modern came into use in 1376, the film is ostensibly set in 1386 so the banners of France Ancient would definitely not have been in use. A black snake on a green field isn't heraldic at all - Le Gris's Arms were a green snake on a silver field [heraldic terms 'translated' for ease of reading]. It really isn't hard to get such things right, especially as you are going to make these banners anyway!
Absolutely love this format on the Royal Armouries! As a fellow northerner just wanted to say how informative and entertaining you are Ellie.
Maybe just get Jonathan to lend you his mic from the Gamespot videos though!
Well done. One correction @19:38 he disarms the shield with a battle axe not a sword.
Not to shade another channel but this is just better explained than HistoryHits attempt. Public trials by combat for example, they implied barely anyone would show up but tons of folks might be directly invested in the outcome, especially if it's two major nobles going at it. Thank you for the great explanation!
Very insightful 👍
I absolutely loved the movie, and the costumes and everything looked great! Loved your video too.
This is excellent information, thank you!
I've never heard of a half helmet before, especially in the tilt? TROY did this with the Greek helmets so we could see Brad Pitt's face, really annoying
hardly a half helmet, the shape was pretty good just far more open also to late for the Troy era but far better then no helmet
I'll always admire Karl Urban for not taking off his helmet in Dredd.
A great breakdown of the scenes.
Thanks.
Personally, I wish that film makers would quit with this "the audience want to see the faces of the actors" for fight scenes, because no we do not, I would much prefer to see the combatants with historically correct armour and weapons. Make the colours as bright as they should be and it would have been easy to tell them apart as one is wearing red and the other blue. If they were honest, it is more the egos of the modern actors that they are catering to.
An example of how it should have been done is the duel scene in the 1952 film Ivanhoe, where by no means perfect, the combatants at least wore proper helmets during the duel, and the audience had not problem telling them apart as they were wearing different (and bright) colours. The two actors, Robert Taylor and George Sanders, were well know actors of the time.
An easy way to see the actors faces is to have the helms knocked off.
Great video, but just go to the room where Jonathan films. Better audio
RA is killing it on here
I would love to see a video like this based on the whole movie, not just the trailer!
This was so interesting! Thank you. I can't wait to watch the film and sound like I know what I'm talking about 😁
Very diplomatic
Great video! That Matt Damon helm is ridiculous…
Is no one going to point out Matt Damon's historically accurate mullet?
They could just as well have used paper bags with holes cut into them for helmets and saved some money on the props. Sounds more like a Kurosowa remake anyway.
She really knows what she's talking about. Almost a Tobias Capwell level of deep diving. impressive.
29:55 thats an axe not a sword isn't it?
Just getting around to this one. I would love to see more analyses of media depicting this time period
Very enjoyable content, glad to hear a review with facts but letting the viewer decide for themselves how much emotion and judgement to add for the inaccuracies. Muted colours being an annoyance? It's Ridley Scott, who exactly is surprised? Random P.S. if you saw Kingdom of Heaven and hated it, I bet you saw the short version. If you did; the director's cut is a daunting length, but I promise, there's so much more storytelling and character build in it that it feels shorter, and it makes for a much better film experience, so give it a shot!
Fabulous; thank you.
20:10. I am pretty sure that's an axe
8.56 a Rondel dagger is used by the sword hand and wouldn't be worn as a cross draw. And it would be really awkward to use in combat as you can't modify your grip. They were used by travellers to fend off robbers.
The is no reason to use a rondel dagger in unarmored combat. That what things like bollock daggers where for. Rondel daggers are specifically made to generate a lot of pressure to penetrate weaker parts of the armor, hence the disk.
We don't really want to see their faces. It's rather that actors like to have their faces onscreen because emoting is part of their acting, and film promoters like the faces of highly paid stars on screen because it helps sell the film. The audience however don't really care.
I’d love to see her review other movies and games, this was great! And c’mon, give her the audio setup she deserves
I like these film weapon reviews but I had to skip this one because of the audio imbalance unfortunately.
Loving this, hope you do more! Could use better camera placement and sound quality, though.
Plz give ur employee a wireless microphone.
@19:40 Isn't Matt Damons character swinging an axe and it looks like he just decapitated the horse.
Look at the horse, wrong end for a head.
@@BlendyStick DOH! I see your point.
Great video .
I thinner Ridely is missing a great change here. We se Damon and Adams faces constantly for 2.5 hours - realistic helmets would have made a better point to sale this as a deadly serious fight. I call this lazy filmmaking
Well done, Eleanor!!! 👏
You seem to have glossed over pretty quickly o. The maIt is very unfortunate that the resn criticism of the movie;
It looks realistic enough (if not entirely period correct) to emphasize the idiotic half-face helmets. It just kills the immersion for anyone with half decent knowledge in medieval combat...
And Ridley Scott is now pestering about millenials because his film bombed, refusing to see that it was aimed at medieval enthusiasts who were expecting another Kingdom of Heaven, but who are unable to watch this because of the ridiculous half-faced helmets...
Read and enjoyed the book some time ago but the silly half-visors and later complete lack of helmets in this film is a deal breaker for me. Especially disappointing in comparison to the recent Netflix film The King where both actors wore fully enclosed helmets during the Prince Hal vs Hotspur duel.
"the truth does not matter, there is only the power of men": postmodern nihilism summed up in one sentence, impressive.
Where did Matt Damon get the Danish war axe ? His great great great great great great grandfather’s friend from up north?
If there's anybody who can resurrect the mullet and bring it into the 21st century, it's Matt 'Gangsta' Damon.
Todd's workshop did a video about why weapons and armour on screen are not exactly period accurate, if you want more information.
Need a better mic
Buy one for them?
@@tufftraveller4784 would you like to buy one for them?
I have seen this movie " the last duel " in october in the cinema in the original version and l have liked it !!
These are good explanations for the reasons all these things are unrealistic, but it is frustrating when so much of these unrealistic things are entirely unnecessary. Imagine a WWII movie with gear from the late Cold War.
Let's not normalize coddling filmakers about these details.
The maille is frayed because it appears to be butted construction. Great breakdown, though. I cringed when I saw the half-visors. When are movie producers going to realize putting historically accurate armour in their movies just as cool as this fantasy altered armour?
Damn she is good at 16 seconds so much information.
This was a great movie everything Scott makes is good but the helmets are ridiculous. I actually own a 14 century close helmet an original and nobody in their right mind would have jousted in a helmet like that.
every film with adam driver in it kind of needs an introduction or a narration by john oliver
I can definitely tell that she really likes Rondel daggers!
'Really Great, real interesting' depiction of how the age was all a dull mostly grey and people were all filthy and smelly. And knights wore only bits of armour so we could see their smiling faces as they got a dagger thru their exposed face. Historical accuracy at Hollywoodland's most accurate.
p.s. - the blonde protagonist 'lady' would not have had her hair uncovered, as it was a sign of promiscuity that would have made her look even more guilty of lying.
Glad to see more of these style videos from this channel, keep it up. Everyone has mentioned the microphone/room accoustics already, but Id also recommend having prep done for the videos, so they're less like a generic react video, and more of a review/discussion video. Thanks x
It's Ridley Scott not Ripley ;) Aliens mixed up??
Great content and I forsee success in this channel, but please hire a sound guy or put out a listing for sound equipment setup and sound advice for free tickets. I bet there are some local people that would gladly help you setup something better for your videos. I see a lot of potential subs and view boost but for it to really take off Ya'll could use help from some a/v peeps and perhaps some donated equipment and software.
19:40 - Looks more like Matt Damon is using an axe rather than a sword to take out the shield.
She’s telling the truth
Men’s ego are so petty
I sincerely hope this movie is going to be an hour of build-up, 30 minute constant fighting and 30-40 minute cooldown conclusion
14th not 13th
As former reenactor and armour maker, I hate inaccurate armour, especially those in Ridley Scott movies. That man seems to be obsessed by inaccurate portrayel of armour and weapons, like the Roman stuff in Gladiator. It's a shame, because it's so easy to do it right. I really can't watch The last Duel, because of the stupid half-visors.... Grow up Ridley, grow up, Hollywood.
Ridley Scott should definitely have used Terry English for the armor in the movie, rather than someone who is know for historical inaccuracies in the portrayal of medieval costumes. I totally support the vision of Ridley Scott, but I also think it could be even better if he'd used a proper expert rather than someone who thinks they know what looks good.
And just to specify something about what another commenter has mentioned several times (that the first version of the armors were impossible to use): If the main actors had to have their armor changed because it was uncomfortable or impossible to act in, that's totally the fault of costumer who designed the fantasy version of their armor, and not how real armors worked. It should be blamed on Janty Yates and Ridley Scott, and not that medieval armors were inherently impossible to move in.
If Terry English were the one supplying the armors, the main actors would have gotten bespoke armors that would have fitted them perfectly (as they would have been made originally too).
It's really cool that Eleanor mentions that WETA makes the best "movie chainmail" too 😇
Tim Lewis was "master armourer" for this shameful show. He "masterarmoured" "armours" for Netflix "Cursed" series, and now is working on "House of Dragons".
This was such a good thing! El you need to get a better microphone. And I support Trial by combat. If you talk shit on twitter you should be able to get called out.
Better than nothing. Why don't you buy the museum one? ;)
@@tufftraveller4784 If the collection toured to Australia I probably would.
The duel that inspired this film pretty illustrates a big problem with Trial by Combat- a lot of the contemporary sources suggest that Carrouges made up the allegations against Le Gris because he had a longstanding grudge against him and knew he was a more experienced fighter than him so thought he would probably win the fight. If you were hard enough you could just go around legally murdering people you didn't like.
@@chrisball3778 I do agree that solving arguments by trial of combat is slightly archaic. I do however think if a pair of idiots want to sort it out that way, well why not. Judge should just give them an order and they can face off.
4:00 Very true. Why ( FFS ) they used such ridiculous helmets ?!
What a wonderful lunch date this woman would be. Yes, I assumed her identity.
It's so upsetting that they wear (for Hollywood standards) pretty accurate mail coifs... that are a good 100 years too late. Yes the shaping is not perfect but they include the ventail which is excellent, it's just sad that they wore those stupid sallets with half-visors over mail coifs. Pick a century! And for God's sake they picked the wrong ones, Sallets are 15th century, and coifs are 13th!
Quite a positive community response, looks like Jonathan has some more company amongst the æthereal realm of internet arms expertise >:)
Just wish Jonathan and The_Chieftain met up...that would be...and if Ian walked in on that meeting...I think if that occurred, a blinding light would appear between the three of them, from which the sword Excalibur would appear triumphantly lol
The Council of Good Natured Weapons and Armour Experts 🤣
Wooowww 👌
never ever use a built-in cam or laptop mic... you move your head 5cm and change the output by 2digit dezibel numbers... great knowledge, great content but you really need audio upgrades... even your phone headset would do better, no offense!
Another piece of Hollywood garbage. Why can’t they ever make a historically accurate film?
it's not all that historically accurate, but it is a lot better than films used to be. I hope that things continue to get better.
@@mattgustafson4956 Compared to Kingdom of Heaven the armour is terrible.
👍👍👍
#1 pausing
#2 Ben Affleck's facial hair
#3 it makes sense that Peter Jackson would make fake mail armour
#4 horses probably don't like horses in armour. I'd imagine it's like when you dress up a dog in a costume.
#5 wacky helmets
#6 Kylo Ren was a jerk but at least he wasn't a gross creep
The trailer showing the entire movie …
Please consider doing this type of content in a prepared discussion or lecture format. Jonathan also did one of these and it's just not a compelling format.
What an excellent presentation by a person with knowledge and presence. Not a note in sight, very proffesional work. Other presenters on the channel shoukld take lessons.
you can compliment a person without dragging others, just saying...
After how comically flawed scotts movies often are( like cate blanchetts and lost boys attack on french knights in robin hood lol) this one seems much better , still a movie but i liked it overall
She is too nice to say that the props and armor are mostly Hollywood BS .
As soon as I saw the half viser I knew that I would never watch this film. I need to preserve what sanity I have left...
Hate the helmets.
How disappointing. I don't expect to hear a curator at the Royal Armouries making excuses for the film-makers' use of innaccurate, and sometimes ludicrous, arms and armour.
The half helmet is the equivalent of fighter pilots flying without an oxygen mask on. Must see the actor face. Even if it's fu..ing stupid.
the LAST thing I would call these helmets is "interesting"
And here is the helmet. It's completely stupid.
I would love to be in that room she's in and be able to handle all those weapons
The laughable half helmets in this movie destroyed any notion that this movie would be realistic. The movie "Dredd" showed that you don't need to see an actor's face all the time. Audiences are not stupid. We can deal with not being able to see an actor's face for a minute or two when he's in a duel. It's not as if their expressions are important during a fight - if the actors have done their job in the lead-up to it, we should already know everything we need to know. The stupidity here is all on the part of whoever decided to ruin what could have been a realistic movie in this way.
The movie was so good and then they whip out those dumb helmets and it ruins the scenes that have them in it
dont let her watch the whole film
Thank you very much for this review. It shows convincingly that the film is rubbish and I am not going to see it in any shape or form. It has saved me some time, money and most importantly, nerves. You can see a better representation of medieval combat if you watch one of hundreds of reenactment clips available for free on UA-cam.
It’s a dramatic film, not a documentary about medieval combat. Lighten up and get over yourself. Movies aren’t accurate. Never have been, never will be, never have intended to be. They’re much better for ignoring “accuracy” for the sake of entertainment. How many 2 hour long UA-cam reenactment videos do you sit on the edge of your seat through?