Melee Gaming

Off Topic => Historical Discussion => Topic started by: Tovi on September 21, 2014, 10:18:24 PM

Title: Ironclad
Post by: Tovi on September 21, 2014, 10:18:24 PM
Who has seen this movie ?


2011


2013
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Falka on September 21, 2014, 11:07:38 PM
(click to show/hide)

I've seen the first one, pretty dissappointing.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Utrakil on September 22, 2014, 01:03:26 AM
part two is 100 min of castledefence.
no story, fast cuts, gore and shaking handcamera.
wouldn't watch again.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Tovi on September 22, 2014, 03:13:12 PM
Not too bad IMO. Actors are good, medieval gears are pretty good (you can recognize some cRPG stuff  :P) and globaly good image quality too.

But ok, scenario is cheap.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: pepejul on September 22, 2014, 03:46:29 PM
Good stuff (cleaver...) first time seen in movie for me  :mrgreen:

Scenario is from 8 y.o kid but good scenes, nice battles, good actors...

Nice film....

Looks like EU-2  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Franke on September 22, 2014, 09:57:34 PM
I've seen the first one, pretty dissappointing.

My thoughts. To me it seemed they were desperately looking for a "last-stand" scenario and completely exaggerated it. I mean, the defenders are holding the castle against those vikings with like 15 men or so. And at the end, the day is saved by the French, really?

(click to show/hide)

EDIT: As it happens, I'm currently watching American Horror Story and when I rewatched the Ironclad trailer from OP it struck me that that Lady (dunno her name, it'S like the only female role in Ironclad) is played by the very same actress who plays that freaked-out girlfriend in Season one of AHS...
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Osiris on September 22, 2014, 10:14:39 PM
Think thats kate mara, shes in House of Cards too. I only watched it because i went to college near the castle so used to look at it out the window but alas film was meh
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Torben on September 22, 2014, 10:18:01 PM
I fucking loved the first one,  and of what im reading here,  Ill love the second one even more :D
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: pepejul on September 22, 2014, 10:22:16 PM
German poleaxe :
(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Gnjus on September 23, 2014, 08:06:39 AM
There is a big bald brute called Ogre wielding a huge mallet........  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Vibe on September 23, 2014, 09:41:00 AM
No James Purefoy T_T
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Christo on September 23, 2014, 11:27:59 AM

Loyd refused to be a historical advisor for this film, guess why :lol:

(click to show/hide)

Pretty fun watch Lindybeige destroy this movie piece by piece  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Angantyr on September 23, 2014, 11:44:25 AM
Medieval movies with historically accurate armaments can be counted on one hand probably. Can't name any save Kingdom of Heaven and perhaps Arn off the top of my head, and I haven't watched either of them in a very long time and can scarcely remember the latter.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Penitent on September 23, 2014, 07:40:17 PM
I liked ironclad.  Good flick.  I didn't know there was a part 2! 
If it's just a bunch of castle sieges and combat scenes -- it sounds perfect. :)
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Torost on September 24, 2014, 09:49:31 AM
Only time I ever got a warning og ban in crpg.. was a forumpost about this movie.
Okin spanked me for including a link to a torrent of the DVDscreener :D

http://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/ironclad-great-medival-battle-siege-movie/ (http://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/ironclad-great-medival-battle-siege-movie/)

learned my lesson! :oops:
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Tovi on September 24, 2014, 11:48:10 AM

Loyd refused to be a historical advisor for this film, guess why :lol:

(click to show/hide)

Pretty fun watch Lindybeige destroy this movie piece by piece  :mrgreen:

Ok, but you could apply all these to cRPG too.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Christo on September 24, 2014, 03:45:26 PM
Ok, but you could apply all these to cRPG too.

But cRPG is not trying to be a historical movie, Tovi.

And no, you couldn't.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Tovi on September 24, 2014, 04:21:31 PM
Really ?
No balustrade on walls and no moat.
Armors mix from X  to XVIth century
unbreakable wooden weapons
Female fighting


Also, in the Roland's song, Roland cut a man and his horse in two with his sword Durandal. 2H heroes can do this  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Christo on September 24, 2014, 04:36:55 PM
Dense again?

cRPG is not aiming to be historically accurate.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Smoothrich on September 25, 2014, 09:10:27 AM
But cRPG is not trying to be a historical movie, Tovi.

And no, you couldn't.

Dense again?

cRPG is not aiming to be historically accurate.

Warband is an action/adventure RPG videogame in a historical setting. Ironclad is an action/adventure movie in a historical setting. One you play to enjoy. The other you watch to enjoy. They are products made for your purchasing entertainment during your leisure time.

Where, besides pedantic autism, lies your argument?>
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Christo on September 25, 2014, 09:17:57 AM
Right in front of you.

Typical smoothbitch
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Tibe on September 25, 2014, 09:32:31 AM
I dont get why people seek historical accuracy in this.  Nowhere on the DVD box or the posters did it state "historically accurate".  I mean, yea sure, its fun to nitpick, but dont go apeshit over it. Its a movie where some historic parts were mixed with fiction. Big deal. Id say "Braveheart" was a way bigger crime. Basically they kinda shitted on a Scottish national hero and Mel Gibson in blue warpaint became a first thing americans...and well everybody else non-scottish get the image of when they think of Scottland or Scottish freedom. And that is just fucked up.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Overdriven on September 25, 2014, 10:08:01 AM
Yeah Braveheart is one of the worst culprits for historical inaccuracy. Pretty much every minute of it is total bullshit from the clothes they wear to the events themselves.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Torben on September 25, 2014, 02:37:21 PM
shit if you want historical accuracy watch documentaries.  why would anyone want to fuck up fun for facts.

conan,  300,  all movies that do great without history.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Butan on September 25, 2014, 02:49:19 PM
cRPG is not aiming to be historically accurate.

Ironclad is?


Good movie, will watch the number 2 when I get the chance.
James Purefoy is a underrated actor who deserve praise for this kind of flick.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Overdriven on September 25, 2014, 04:09:56 PM
shit if you want historical accuracy watch documentaries.  why would anyone want to fuck up fun for facts.

Because unfortunately there are many in this world stupid enough to take a Hollywood as largely fact.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Smoothrich on September 25, 2014, 04:26:32 PM
why would anyone want to fuck up fun for facts.

I don't understand either, that's why I asked Christo, and got a shitpost response.

You could watch pretty much any movie about anything ever made and find hundreds of things that aren't congruent with our living reality.. but you are watching a movie. It makes no sense. You can say this about anything that takes place anywhere about anything else, ever. Even film or photo of the real event, because of intrinsic bias in composition and perspective and so on.

Imagine reading a book and for 500 pages working yourself up in a frothing rage at "Historical Inaccuracies" of some sweeping romantic historical epic/drama with multiple character POVs from different cultures expressing overarching themes about the current day using an understandable historic setting as the template to tell a story. Could someone keep turning the pages, engaging with the book as an affront to their sense of intellectualism, or more accurately, youtube/wikipedia "fact-checking?" THIS ISN't HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED. *flip page with greasy fingers* WOW IT GETS WORSE EVERY PAGE *hours later* HEH.. no wonder Americans are so ignorant.. they think this is how it really was.. know nothing of martial history..*logs into cRPG for 10 hours of nonstop gaming, ignoring hygiene*

You could go to the Met, or I guess for you EUs, the shit-tier Louvre, and stand in front of a Picasso painting while chomping on a pastry and spitting up phlegm and crumbs on the canvas, rambling to no one in particular how those brush strokes of a historical event "totally fail lol, wut u cant see y this is shit, its a HISTORICAL painting.. get less ignorant.." and then stopping right there at your thought process because it wasn't a 1 to 1 recreation of what some historian said he thinks sounds good 200 years ago and now everyone accepts as fact because duh, that's what Truth is.

You know Braveheart, whether you like it or not, is the same crap. Yeah you can see tons of Mel Gibson's political/historical bias and revisionism bleed through, using historical figures to forge a modern "epic" characterization of our ideals in freedom or patriotism, using cinematic language as shorthand to gloss over compex characters, so on and so forth, and finding mass appeal in order to become a commercial success.  Well no fucking shit, it did everything Mel Gibson and his crew wanted it to do, and was a resounding success, and he prob gives no shits about Scottish independence, because he's a drunken anti-semite Australian-American millionare.

It wasn't a history movie. It was a historical epic. But u know, only noobs like the Iliad, watch this neckbearded youtuber 'destroy' Homer in 3 hours of him wheezing into the microphone about the inaccuracies of Trojan military tactics, making anyone who thinks the Iliad/Odyssey supposedly means anything outside of the OBVIOUS intention of academic dry military history, an idiot.

Unless Christo, you can tell me what makes the Iliad different from Ironclad, and either of those, different from cRPG?  Cuz I'd love 2 learn.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Overdriven on September 25, 2014, 04:59:42 PM
What an excessively long rant.

I'd like to point out that most historical novels have a historical note at the back that addresses any inaccuracies the author may have incurred for the sake of the story. Or maybe you just haven't read that far  :wink:
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Torben on September 25, 2014, 07:52:35 PM
Because unfortunately there are many in this world stupid enough to take a Hollywood as largely fact.

thats true,  but thats also kinda there problem : )

i wouldnt want to do without good movies for the sake of dumb peoples chance of misconception 
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Tibe on September 25, 2014, 08:20:40 PM
God I hate Braveheart so much. The problem isnt that people take it as a fact. Im quite sure majority dont. Its just that this crap is so freaking rememerable. Im pretty sure if we think of Scotland inevtiably we also think of that asshole Gibsons smug face and we know better than that, dont we, but this shit just sticks to our brains.

You cant just do a movie on national icons. You can somewhat on historical events, but not actual heavly renowned people. If you do, it has to be very well planned out, not to be offensive.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Penitent on October 22, 2014, 08:02:00 PM
I just saw Ironclad 2 Battle for Blood.

Oh god it sucks.  Some movies are so bad and cheesey that they are funny and you can laugh at them.  This one tries to be serious though, and it's just totally horrible.

The castle "sieges" are like 12 people assaulting a wall.  The acting is atrocious.  It's not the same actor playing the protagonist.  The camera work is shit.  The cinematography is just so forced.  Like, trying to be dramatic but totally failing.  The writing is corny.  The characters are flat.  There are a few good moments -- but it's not worth it.

The storyline -- the sequence of events and interactions -- the timeline of the battles ---- IT ALL MAKES NO SENSE.  It jumps around all over the place.  The ending is completely nonsensical.  It is abrupt and baffling.  It leaves questions with the viewer -- and not the kind of good questions that provoke thought.  Questions like "what the fuck was that?  Who the hell is that character and why on earth would he do such a retarded thing?  That's the end?  Who wrote this piece of shite?  Where they really high, or did they just quit and someone else had to end the script?  What were the producers thinking?  The director?  Did the actors even know what they were doing, or were they all lied to?"

Sorry for the rant -- but based on the description of the movie, I thought it would be good, and I wanted to come back and follow up.
Title: Re: Ironclad
Post by: Tovi on October 22, 2014, 08:31:34 PM
I just saw Ironclad 2 Battle for Blood.

Oh god it sucks.  Some movies are so bad and cheesey that they are funny and you can laugh at them.  This one tries to be serious though, and it's just totally horrible.

The castle "sieges" are like 12 people assaulting a wall.  The acting is atrocious.  It's not the same actor playing the protagonist.  The camera work is shit.  The cinematography is just so forced.  Like, trying to be dramatic but totally failing.  The writing is corny.  The characters are flat.  There are a few good moments -- but it's not worth it.

The storyline -- the sequence of events and interactions -- the timeline of the battles ---- IT ALL MAKES NO SENSE.  It jumps around all over the place.  The ending is completely nonsensical.  It is abrupt and baffling.  It leaves questions with the viewer -- and not the kind of good questions that provoke thought.  Questions like "what the fuck was that?  Who the hell is that character and why on earth would he do such a retarded thing?  That's the end?  Who wrote this piece of shite?  Where they really high, or did they just quit and someone else had to end the script?  What were the producers thinking?  The director?  Did the actors even know what they were doing, or were they all lied to?"

Sorry for the rant -- but based on the description of the movie, I thought it would be good, and I wanted to come back and follow up.

+1

First movie was not too bad, but this one is cheaper. Cheaper actors, cheaper costumes, cheaper scenario etc.