> > It's a perfectly good fantasy film, I'd say. It bears little or no
> > resemblance to anything in history, but then nor does Xena.
>
> The difference between Braveheart and Xena is that Xena never
> pretended to be anything other than campy fantasy...
You mean Braveheart does? There are people around who'd take that seriously? Oh.
> Now, I love campy fantasy as much as the next man (sometimes
> more). What I dislike intensely is fantasy wrapping itself in
> "the true story of..."
Well, if the wrappings are supposed to be believed, then yes, it's an insult to the intelligence of anyone aged above about 5....
> history. Examples: Braveheart, King Arthur (the recent film
> with Arthur-as-Sarmatian),
I really must get around to watching that. I seem to remember there's a certain amount of evidence for the knights-based-on-Sarmatians theory, enough to be worth writing fiction based on, anyway. And no doubt the fight scenes are as much of a laugh as usual.
> Gladiator,
Hmmm... Good story, anyway. Fight scenes hilarious.
> Robin Hood Prince of Thieves (with Kevin Costner),
Was that *ever* supposed to be based on anything remotely historical?
> U571, the patriot (with Mel Gibson as a Revolutionary War patriot).
As I remember those, both suffer from a nasty case of "the hero has to be American".
You missed Troy - only loosely based on Homer, and with some very "interesting" ideas of period weapons and how to use them. But it's got good-looking blokes with not many clothes on waving swords around, so that'll do me.
> Just don't use the "true history" films as exemplars of what
> life like or what actually happened in their era...
With the former perhaps being the more dangerous. We don't care what actually happened, for Gloranthan purposes. The danger is picking up ideas of what's realistic. "But that's how Achilles uses a short sword, therefore...." "that little farm had that many cows, therefore..."
End of Glorantha Digest, Vol 11, Issue 54
Powered by hypermail