107 replies to this topic

[amster]

I was never that blown away by the 300. It's a movie and movie's do what they must to sell tickets. If you want armor, watch Excalibur. Personally, I like armor, and I would like to see it used more, instead we get all of this sexy abs crap. But, it does give you a better chance to watch a blood and carnage flick with your girlfriend.

Excalibur? lol! The armor in that film is only off by about 1000 years. Excalibur is a perfect example of sacrificing historical accuracy for coolness.

Excalibur was based on Malory's La Morte D'Arthur. Says so at the beginning of the movie. Neither Boorman nor the studio ever claimed to represent the culture or tech of 500AD. All of the late medieval Arthurian tales were told as if they were "contemporary". Hell, even tales of the Trojan War were told in the same way. Boorman's film seems perfectly in line (visually) with how Malory intended it.

However, the armor was quite practical/realistic, which (I think) was RJM's point.

And my point is that the tradition is still being carried on today. Just as La Morte D'Arthur is a reflection of the time in which it was written, so is Braveheart, Gladiator, and 300.

[johnnypt]

I was never that blown away by the 300. It's a movie and movie's do what they must to sell tickets. If you want armor, watch Excalibur. Personally, I like armor, and I would like to see it used more, instead we get all of this sexy abs crap. But, it does give you a better chance to watch a blood and carnage flick with your girlfriend.

Excalibur? lol! The armor in that film is only off by about 1000 years. Excalibur is a perfect example of sacrificing historical accuracy for coolness.

That's the first thing my dad said when he saw the movie: "That isn't the kind of armor they had back then." Yet to a 13 year old, I thought that's exactly how it should look because, yeah, it looked cool and matched up with the way I saw it my head based on the stories. It's all part of the "when the legend becomes fact, print the legend" conundrum.

[TheDarkslayer]

I was never that blown away by the 300. It's a movie and movie's do what they must to sell tickets. If you want armor, watch Excalibur. Personally, I like armor, and I would like to see it used more, instead we get all of this sexy abs crap. But, it does give you a better chance to watch a blood and carnage flick with your girlfriend.

Excalibur? lol! The armor in that film is only off by about 1000 years. Excalibur is a perfect example of sacrificing historical accuracy for coolness.

Excalibur was based on Malory's La Morte D'Arthur. Says so at the beginning of the movie. Neither Boorman nor the studio ever claimed to represent the culture or tech of 500AD. All of the late medieval Arthurian tales were told as if they were "contemporary". Hell, even tales of the Trojan War were told in the same way. Boorman's film seems perfectly in line (visually) with how Malory intended it.

However, the armor was quite practical/realistic, which (I think) was RJM's point.

And all of this time I thought it was only 200 years off! hah. I never gave the period any serious thought. I did love watching them all slug it out though. seemed pretty realistic watching those knights moving so slow. wouldn't cut it on the big screen today.

so the topic begs the question (without getting into much detail) ... If you go into a battle what would you wear and wield? Me, I'm not so big, so a long sword, shield and shirt of chain mail.

[constantine]

Historicity in films is relative. When you watch a movie like 300, you know what to expect. I sure did like it because I was expecting something like this. But it is totally wrong to say that if a film gets close to history it will be a failure by default. I'm quite certain that a decent adaptation of pressfield's Gates of Fire could be an enjoyable film.

The key is not to be absolutely faithful to historical events, but to convey an atmosphere close to the depicted era. I did not like the Kingdom of Heaven, because of the totally lame portrayal of the crusaders. Yes, the armor was cool (and historically accurate) and the scenery was close to Outremer, but the characters (specifically the crusaders) were not even remotely close to medieval persons. And there wasn't even a descent mounted knights' charge, only that lame scirmish outside Kerak. These and other details bothered me and not the historical innacuracies in events (Sibylla had actually married Guy de Lusignan and promoted him to the throne after having a secret love afair with him).

I found Joan of Arc with Mila Jovovitch a good film, though some may have disliked its twists. But if anyone claims that it was a bad movie simply because the characters wore historically accurate medieval clothing and armor, that person is simply retarded. If anything, in films like this one can see why a good portrayal of the Middle Ages can be visually interesting.

Finally, extreme (or highly improbable) historical inaccuracies in depiction of persons and presentation of historical or even fictional events can certainly ruin films. The ''extreme'' elements may be relative to everyone, but most would probably agree that having the legionaries in Gladiator appear and fight as Greek hoplites would be ludicrous or disastrous for the movie.

[monk]

i'm all for artistic license, but I think that it gets goofy when you start getting into what people call fantasy swords and such- you know like dragon wing hilts and what not, or like what iron hand was saying about artists just trying to make something look "cool" which actually looks goofy, unless you don't care. I mean drawing someone like Conan, who is not armored, with a sword with a mace like hilt, is just stoooopid.

one of the reasons why I'd like to see a rubric which we have discussed before, would be to set some parameters for artistic license. I mean there is a lot of artistic license in historicity- just look at any arms and armor exhibit such as at the Met and you will see what I mean.

I'd also say that some artists are pretty open to suggestions, such as Dan Panosian for example.

[amster]

i'm all for artistic license, but I think that it gets goofy when you start getting into what people call fantasy swords and such- you know like dragon wing hilts and what not, or like what iron hand was saying about artists just trying to make something look "cool" which actually looks goofy, unless you don't care. I mean drawing someone like Conan, who is not armored, with a sword with a mace like hilt, is just stoooopid.

But that's just it, you're not for artistic license. If you were, you'd realize that the reason someone draws a fantasy sword is because they got the image of one in their imagination and decided to draw it on paper. Limiting yourself only to things that exist in the real world takes no imagination at all.

one of the reasons why I'd like to see a rubric which we have discussed before, would be to set some parameters for artistic license. I mean there is a lot of artistic license in historicity- just look at any arms and armor exhibit such as at the Met and you will see what I mean.

Such a rubric would be nothing more than the less talented dictating to the gifted what they can and cannot do. If such a rubric were ever enforced, the world of art would become a dull a lifeless place overnight, devoid of inspiration. But luckily, that will never happen.

[Almuric]

Yeah, the armor in Excalibur never bothered me. It fit perfectly with the medieval romances, which were chock-a-block with anachronisms. Historical accuracy is a fairly modern invention.

[EM Erdelac]

My dad can't watch a spaghetti western because he's a railroading nut and the trains are Italian (also the guns are usually inaccurate, like the pistols using cartridge ammunition in Good The Bad And The Ugly). But these are great films. The invincible gunfighter fanning six rounds and taking down six guys is inaccurate, but who doesn't like to see that?

I think a good example of histroically accurate arms and battle might've been the Agincourt battle in Kenneth Brannagh's Henry V, but I'm no expert.

[monk]

i feel like it is necessary to point out that there are entire SCHOOLS of design within the parameters of traditional weapons and armor. to suggest that there is no artistic license involved in their creation, or no sense of aesthetics, or that providing a framework for their depictions that is based on their actual functionality/historocity is somehow crushing artistic freedom is pretty laughable. nobody in ten million years would suggest to da vinci, hey you know that battle of anghiari everyones copying, you know what would really just set it off is a dragon wing scimitar. if someone were to say hey masamune, stop crushing my creativity, lmao, they'd probably find that part of their brain in which creativity comes from lobotomized. Lots of people will say one of the things that weakens Boris' paintings is his use of Tizona, El Cid's sword.

so especially if you call yourself an artist, to suggest that an understanding of and a fluency with the vastness of design extant in the entire history of weapons and armor design is limiting and stifling is really to simply say, I know nothing, and am lazy, so here's a dragon wing hilt and a pointy thingamajig for a pommel, because it's 'cool' and I imagined it that way. that makes me laugh.

that was never enough to justify good art, but it can be used to point out bad art. not every kid with a computer can create a typeface although god knows thousands try and 9 out of ten of them are garbage.

the world of art is already pumping out tons of awesome stuff within such parameters as I suggest and doing very fine at it.

museums and private collections are bursting with examples of weapons that are considered to be examples of art. and the terrific thing is, when introduced to it, many of the very same artists who have done the, what was it called, 'imagination' run free thing, actually appreciate enhancing their art, as every artist worth their weight constantly seeks to improve their craft.

i sense a bit of the pot this is kettle, you're black, in this thread considering some of the bluster in other threads, bluster that would be considered against carte blanche artistic freedom.

LotR did a fine job delivering some really beautiful weapons that didn't get goofy/fantasy/because it's cool/ and I don't see what anyone could say about the aesthetic presented there, and in fact those weapons were super cool because of how they were designed and developed.

Edited by monk, 29 April 2012 - 06:00 AM.

[monk]

My dad can't watch a spaghetti western because he's a railroading nut and the trains are Italian (also the guns are usually inaccurate, like the pistols using cartridge ammunition in Good The Bad And The Ugly). But these are great films. The invincible gunfighter fanning six rounds and taking down six guys is inaccurate, but who doesn't like to see that?

I think a good example of histroically accurate arms and battle might've been the Agincourt battle in Kenneth Brannagh's Henry V, but I'm no expert.

those old colt navy black powder pistols are a blast to shoot, pardon the pun, despite being such a pain in the arse to load.

[amster]

i sense a bit of the pot this is kettle, you're black, in this thread considering some of the bluster in other threads,

You're the one who had your ridiculous rubric idea back into the discussion, which is nothing more than the less talented dictating to artists what they can and cannot do. Most of the people who complain about unrealistic armor, etc. view it as pet peeves of theirs. You take it to the next level and suggest they make a law against it.

[amster]

http://www.kenkellyf...881/5067373.htm

Nightshade Books allowed me all the freedom I needed to create this cover for their book. Kane is charging into a mass of enemy soldiers, slaughtering as he goes, mad with rage. His red beard making him look more god-like, like nothing on earth could stop him. I made him bare chested to give some sense of danger, since he's obviously a killing machine. Withiout that easy sword access to his heart and organs, you've got a one sided battle. Readers want that danger, that question of whether or not the hero will emerge victorious.

-Ken Kelly, Escape

[monk]

Most comic book illustrations of armor are really, really unrealistic and weird. This is maybe because most comic artists come from either a modern or superhero background, which doesn't involve a lot of practice illustrating convincing half-plate.

Are there any comic books or artists out there that do show pretty good illustrations of armor?

Joseph Michael Linsner (Dawn) does a good set of scale mail and decent chain. He shows it has having substance and rigidity without making it look 6" thick like D&D illustrations.

Dark Horse's Kull had decent plate armor.

you should take a quick scroll down to illustrated conan, therein you will find a thread about seriously good conan art there are a ton of examples in there of terrific artists who can handle armor. to suggest it can't be done, and then further suggest that those artists who can do it are somehow less creative or less talented is patently ludicrous.

which thread kicks off with this talentless, clearly stifled hack of an artist, ahem, Fabian's epic black and white:



http://www.conan.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=8704&st=0

[amster]

you should take a quick scroll down to illustrated conan, therein you will find a thread about seriously good conan art there are a ton of examples in there of terrific artists who can handle armor. to suggest it can't be done, and then further suggest that those artists who can do it are somehow less creative or less talented is patently ludicrous.

Clearly you don't understand my point. I never said that someone who strives to make armor and weapons as historically arcurrate and functional as possible are less talented than someone who draws purely out of his imagination. My point is that both schools are equially valid, depending on how the artist is inspired and what he wants to convey to the audience. The problem with your argument is that it only recognizes one school of artistic expression as valid. It's sort of like someone who only views traditional jazz or classical music as "real" music and dismisses other genres as noise. Perhaps you should go back and read Ken Kelly's quote and put some thought into what he's saying, because I like happen to like Ken Kelly, as well as Frazetta, Margaret Brundage, and hordes of others, but if you had your way these people would have never gotten hired in the first place.

one of the reasons why I'd like to see a rubric which we have discussed before, would be to set some parameters for artistic license. I mean there is a lot of artistic license in historicity- just look at any arms and armor exhibit such as at the Met and you will see what I mean.

And since Howard is dead, who's going to be given the responsibility for writing this rubric? Who do you suggest? I have an idea: why don't you write this rubric, and submit it to Paradox and see if they'll adopt it? But you won't. And the most ironic thing is, even if Paradox/CPI composed their own rubric, you'd be on this very board complaining about what they supposedly got wrong, and you'd be suggesting that "somebody" compose a new rubric.

[monk]

what makes great music great is recognizable across genres. that there is great jazz and lousy jazz is moot, great blues and lousy blues, great heavy metal and not so great, awesome classical and weaker efforts are not the same.

for the sake of clarity and sidestepping the wearying ad hominems and straw men, below is an excerpt and a link to a script from mr. brian wood, from the northlanders comics.

nowadays there are tons of creativity squashing scripts around for people to digest, it's a wonder how any art at all gets produced in the genre of comics, what with all these guidelines and restrictions to artists imaginations, Heavens to Murgatroyd.

http://comicbookscriptarchive.com/goods/brianwood/Northlanders_11.pdf

a rubric such as what i proposed, or a Bible, or the Encyclopaedia that Taranaich is writing, would make life easy for the artist and writer, save them the trouble of having to do due diligence which they often do not do as it's time consuming. and it would provide kind of what many writers already do, just not enough of it. which is why you get aquilonians dressed as centurions and what not.

mr. wood provides jpegs and links to how he envisions the story art to be, as reference material for mr. kelly, to show what he is describing is supposed to look like, but not all writers do that. for example he references a squad of rohirrim for the artist, and provides a jpeg of a turf mound peat house so the artist can get an idea of what such a thing looks like. or as some would put it, that way the artist's creativity can be properly stifled and squashed.

or in actual terms, that way the guy doesn't waste his imagination running wild and draw a walt disney castle, or a log cabin, or gingerbread house, not that kelly would do anything so preposterous... but why not after all, some people could find that to be cool, as some seem to argue.

an excerpt from the script:


Notes:


Some additional character descriptions: The men that Ragnar is commanding, these are
a medieval version of special forces or contractor security, non-conventional soldiers
with high skill and discipline and a lot of leeway to execute their missions.

So they have all the trappings of a Viking warrior – the chainmail armor, the two swords
(one long, one short), the helmets, the shields... all that should be gleaming, well-
maintained and on or with them at all times. Some might augment that with axes stuck
into their belts, metal lined leather arm guards, things like that. And like any
accomplished Viking warriors, lots of bling: bracelets and rings mostly, that are worn
loose down around the wrists and forearms, not so much tight over the biceps.

Where the non-conventional stuff comes is is in their hair and beards... think White
Zombie – dreadlocky hair, long beards that either are a tangles mess or braided into
single or double bunches, with human finger bones tied into it. Their hair in the same
way, long, messy, tied back at times but always loose for a battle. You can have a little
fun with this. Facial scars, missing eyes, missing teeth, broken noses... we can’t forget
that these are professional soldiers, but like I said, non-conventional forces. Hunter-
killer teams.

I’ll give them colorful names like Lice-Beard and Slayer and Blacktooth.

[amster]

mr. wood provides jpegs and links to how he envisions the story art to be, as reference material for mr. kelly, to show what he is describing is supposed to look like, but not all writers do that. for example he references a squad of rohirrim for the artist, and provides a jpeg of a turf mound peat house so the artist can get an idea of what such a thing looks like. or as some would put it, that way the artist's creativity can be properly stifled and squashed.

or in actual terms, that way the guy doesn't waste his imagination running wild and draw a walt disney castle, or a log cabin, or gingerbread house, not that kelly would do anything so preposterous... but why not after all, some people could find that to be cool, as some seem to argue.

I take it that you're not all that familiar with Ken Kelly's work, because if you were you'd realize that he is all over the map. He can draw highly realistic weapons and armor when he wants to, and sometimes he draws highly stylized fantasy weapons and armor with dragon hilts, extremely large blades, etc. As for his anatomy, it's the same story: he can draw normal proportioned people as well as steroid freaks and huge fantasy boobs. So I'd venture to guess that his reply to you would be "Maybe I didn't want to draw it that way". And yeah, for the record, I think his artwork is cool.

I just finished reading A Fighting Man of Mars, and noticed that Frazetta's illustrations of Tavia look virtually nothing like how Burroughs described her. The most glaring difference is the fact that Frank Frazetta gave her very long hair. Does it bother me? No, it doesn't bother me a bit. It still compliments the story quite well.

Since Brian Wood is the author of Northlanders, he has a right to have certain expectations met when it comes to the person he hires to illustrate his story. He is, in effect, authorizing it. Howard and Burroughs, on the other hand, are dead, and any illustration or comic adaptation are, by their very nature, second hand material/pastiche, created by a seperate creative mind, and are not authorized by the creator. I find it odd that you of all people would hold Brian Wood up as the example to follow. How's that whole "Becky Cloonan/Queen of the Black Coast" thing working out for you?

I can guarantee you that if Al Harron's Encyclopedia get's published, not all fans or scholars will be in 100% agreement with it.

[monk]

of course I'm familiar with it. He's fine, I like a lot of his pieces, many more than others, such as his Hour of the Dragon. But yeah I do think his art would benefit from a more literal translation, when it comes to his Conan work, because if there is weakness it's where he veers off and frazetta same thing too. That's the point that I think goes missed, that people are thinking that with structure these artists that people throw up wouldn't be able to execute awesome work if they knew what an actual broadsword was or looked to historical examples. It's ridiculous. It's not the sword that makes a Ken Kelly or a Frazetta, per se, but it is the sword that can make it weaker. Boris putting El Cid's sword in Conan's hand just looks silly, and it could just have easily been a different sword.

i don't think it's that tough to ascertain what Howard meant when he wrote Conan's descriptions, so I fail to see what point is being made by saying he's deceased. Tolkein is passed on as well and Jackson did just fine envisioning what he wrote, minor gripes and misses aside.

also, I don't think Kelly's work would suffer at all, as it clearly doesn't, when given parameters, and if you haven't asked him, I think you'd be wise not to put words in his mouth which are yours, because it really is starting to seem to me you are arguing to hear yourself type. I don't recall you having ever mentioned any art or design work under your belt, or that you are an artist, or even work in a creative field.

speaking as an art director of MANY years, and being on the other side of one myself these days.


LMAO how's it working for YOU? It's cooooooooooooooooool to a lot of people so you should be mums the word no? It's just Cloonan's "creativity."

I'm not putting Wood up as THE example. This is where you start to tilt at windmills in your own brain. But it does provide a concrete as example as we can get to show you how things are done professionally, that generally there isn't carte blanche- artists are not rejecting scripts because they are told what kind of saddle to put on a frakking horse, and how a rubric would fit into and help shape what is usually happening anyway. The artist is given a structure. What it seems to me, many people are saying, including YOURSELF, is that artists could use a little more help in envisioning things. You have moaned on about Aquiromans haven't you? Yes you have, as have I, and many others. So if what you are saying out of this side of your mouth now is true, there is no gripe. It's just artistic license. Creativity. We should have nothing to say about it, because it is the artist's vision.

I like Wood's work in general,I like Northlanders quite a bit, for Conan, I just wish he would stick to the story and get creative where it is open for him to do so, and I like Cloonan's art, I just wish she would have had a rubric to guide her away from Barista frappucino slinger emo rock band lead. I've never seen one of Wood's Conan scripts, I've seen one of Busiek's, and I would wager if there was one we could look at it would not be as fleshed out as his Northlander scripts, leaving more to Cloonan's precious imagination as you would have it.

So you see my position is that if Wood took as much care or more with Conan as he did with Northlanders, and Cloonan had a rubric or a Bible or an Encyclopaedia to digest, her art would be better. I so much as asked him that actually, through Zach.

[amster]

of course I'm familiar with it. He's fine, I like a lot of his pieces, many more than others, such as his Hour of the Dragon. But yeah I do think his art would benefit from a more literal translation, when it comes to his Conan work, because if there is weakness it's where he veers off and frazetta same thing too. That's the point that I think goes missed, that people are thinking that with structure these artists that people throw up wouldn't be able to execute awesome work if they knew what an actual broadsword was or looked to historical examples. It's ridiculous. It's not the sword that makes a Ken Kelly or a Frazetta, per se, but it is the sword that can make it weaker. Boris putting El Cid's sword in Conan's hand just looks silly, and it could just have easily been a different sword.

The only thing ridiculous is the implication (actually more than than a mere implication on your part) that the artists in question aren't as smart as you are; that they're not capable of picking up a reference book or going online and seeing what an actual historical broadsword looks like. The obvious answer that's still eludes you is that they made a consious choice not to draw it that way anyway. Why would a person aspire to become a fantasy artist in the first place if he didn't know what armor and weapons looked like? Obviously these poor ignorant artists need a helping hand to guide them, because they're obviously not capable of reading the text they're illustrating or refreencing a subject before drawing it. If they're not capable of doing this, why would they be smart enough to read this rubric of yours?

I don't recall you having ever mentioned any art or design work under your belt, or that you are an artist, or even work in a creative field.

speaking as an art director of MANY years, and being on the other side of one myself these days.

I'm not a professional artist and don't work professionally in any creative field, like most of the people on this forum. Having said that, I'm not at all impressed by your credentials. You claimed in the past to be some sort of martial artist, yet you didn't even seem to know the difference between wuxia and samurai films. You claimed to be a school teacher, and yet your grammar and punctuation is terrible. Now you're claiming to be an art director...

Edited by amster, 29 April 2012 - 08:11 PM.

[Axerules]

Mod warning. Stop the ad hominem attacks. Now.

[monk]

...seemed pretty realistic watching those knights moving so slow. wouldn't cut it on the big screen today.

you'd be surprised to see some of the things you can pull off in full plate. there are more than a few youtube vids you can check out about moving around in full plate.