Armor in movies.


log in or register to remove this ad

I am not sure, but I think the villain in crying Freeman is saved by his bulletproof (in this case from a knife, I think ).
Other case: V- The Visitors: their armor totally protects them from the "normal" bullets of the rebells.
Oh, Loaded Weapon 3: two bulletproof vests to protect against the cop-killers.


But, well, Armor protects only as far as the story allows it to protect. If someone needs to be killed he can be inceased in a 20 meter block of adamant and still he will die (OK, I know what follows: sure, he will suffocate), and if he is to live, he could wear a fig-leave. It is in g.. ah, the directors hand, who lives or dies.
And in the case of Excalibur: the armor is clearly a symbol for the knighthood and the worldlyness that comes with it. Only after Parceval gets rid of his armor, shedding his worldlyness and sins, is he able to find the grail (maybe a bit strange to think of Excalibur as a realistic movie, of even a historically correct one)
 

Armor in movies and TV is a plot device, the only time you see it mattering is when it is called on by the story, the rest of the time it is just fluff. ;)
 

Well, dining in full plate not withstanding, Excalibur does a darn good job in protraying armor doing what it is built to do.

From the armor protecting Lancelot and Arthur as they duke it out to not protecting much when Excalibur does its nasty thing of chopping legs off, that movie has the best fighting-in-armor I've seen.

Re: knights never taking armor off: Well, Lancelot _does_ take his armor off... for Guinevere! ;)
 
Last edited:


but we talking about arthur the LEGEND a person who may never existed. Or had little to do with the legend like Robin Hood. When It comes legends I don't care as long as the cast and crew don't try to bs me that they did research to match the armour with historical time. Aka braveheart close, 13 warrior missed.
 
Last edited:

jasper said:
but we talking about arthur the LEGEND a person who may never existed. Or had little to do with the legend like Robin Hood. When It comes legends I don't care as long as the cast and crew don't try to bs me that they did research to match the armour with historical time. Aka braveheart close, 13 warrior missed.

I can certainly see why they chose the armor they used in Excaliber- it's the height of the armorer's art. Western armor never got any better than that, and you have to admit it looks a hell of a lot better than a chain Hauberk (or Lorica Segmentata).

As for 13th warrior, I suppose the armor is probably a bit off. Some of it is clearly too advanced. However I do like the fact that the armor is protrayed as a piecemeal affair scrounged from battles.

buzzard
 

johnsemlak said:
Of course, the main problem with armor in Excaliber is that such armor didn't exist in the 6th century...
Excaliber was based on L'morte D'Arthur, a 15th century retelling of the Arthur legend. So the armor is appropriate to the version of the Arthur tale used.

PS
 

I heard from a group of Renaissance reinactment folk that the movie that did the best job with armor was, of all movies, A Knight's Tale. They said the armor was the most authentic. I just watched it recently, and they seemed to handle it quite well. Worked when it should have, failed when it should have.

Now I don't know if they were also referring to Ledger's fancy ultru-thin armor, but all the rest was apparently spot on.
 

Dimwhit said:
I heard from a group of Renaissance reinactment folk that the movie that did the best job with armor was, of all movies, A Knight's Tale. They said the armor was the most authentic. I just watched it recently, and they seemed to handle it quite well. Worked when it should have, failed when it should have.

Now I don't know if they were also referring to Ledger's fancy ultru-thin armor, but all the rest was apparently spot on.
I have to say this REALLY surprises me!! Now it at least has more then just Ledger was in it as a plus. :)
 

Remove ads

Top