Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Which one's Alec Salmond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 He's the one who appears only when there's good news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Cockade Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Yawn..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted July 2, 2011 Author Share Posted July 2, 2011 Yawn..... Indulge me. Bored on a Saturday afternoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Plissken Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Not having much luck with threads today OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted July 2, 2011 Author Share Posted July 2, 2011 Not having much luck with threads today OP. True. Looking over the shed, I can see how bored I am. Time to exit with what little grace I have left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smack Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Just heard geese. Traditionally they honk. They don't. It's more a heeeeaawwwww heaaaw. Selected a thread at random to share this. They honked or whatever it is they do. Good animals geese. Shame to eat them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Which one's Alec Salmond? Has any other motion picture ever garnered such obsession from people on a football message-board? Honestly, the amount of recurring Braveheart threads on here is truly startling. It is a film... Not a history lesson. Do you reckon there is a Greek Football team's forum somewhere, where fans of a club there are all in their version of The Shed constantly slating 'Troy'? Or Roma/Lazio fans getting overly upset about 'Gladiator'? I cannae get my head around why this one film angers so many people. Not a criticism really, just truly amazed that it annoys people so much. It is just a work of fiction like 'The Vikings', Robin Hood Prince of Thieves', 'The Patriot' or 'Gladiator' or something... It is not supposed to be taken as a historical documentary. Never known a movie to irritate people so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted July 3, 2011 Author Share Posted July 3, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Has any other motion picture ever garnered such obsession from people on a football message-board? Honestly, the amount of recurring Braveheart threads on here is truly startling. It is a film... Not a history lesson. Do you reckon there is a Greek Football team's forum somewhere, where fans of a club there are all in their version of The Shed constantly slating 'Troy'? Or Roma/Lazio fans getting overly upset about 'Gladiator'? I cannae get my head around why this one film angers so many people. Not a criticism really, just truly amazed that it annoys people so much. It is just a work of fiction like 'The Vikings', Robin Hood Prince of Thieves', 'The Patriot' or 'Gladiator' or something... It is not supposed to be taken as a historical documentary. Never known a movie to irritate people so much. Gladiator p*sses all over Braveheart.Both Aussies don't come out of either too well mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Gladiator p*sses all over Braveheart.Both Aussies don't come out of either too well mind! Spartacus and Ben Hur [mod edit] on them both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Spartacus and Ben Hur [mod edit] on them both You have a point,sir,but i think Gladiator will be looked on in years to come as a classic.Braveheart is mince and won't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Gladiator p*sses all over Braveheart.Both Aussies don't come out of either too well mind! It is based on 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' Think Obi Wan Kenobi was in it. I think Gladiator is better than TFOTRE too. My point is just that they are all fictitious films based on historical figures but we seem to have loads of threads about Braveheart on here... Mainly getting upset about it's historical inaccuracies... If you really want a film to get upset about for such inaccuracies then get a load of Costner in Robin Hood... SHEEEEEEEEEEEZUUUUUS!!!!!! I don't even know where to begin with that film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon Wilson Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 It is based on 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' Think Obi Wan Kenobi was in it. I think Gladiator is better than TFOTRE too. My point is just that they are all fictitious films based on historical figures but we seem to have loads of threads about Braveheart on here... Mainly getting upset about it's historical inaccuracies... If you really want a film to get upset about for such inaccuracies then get a load of Costner in Robin Hood... SHEEEEEEEEEEEZUUUUUS!!!!!! I don't even know where to begin with that film. Aye, Costner and Freeman land at the White cliffs of Dover. Then a moment or two later they are running along Hadrian's wall! Kevin Costner: "Im Robin of Loxely" in an American accent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 tbf, robin hood never existed so you can make him whatever you want. don't understand people getting worked up about braveheart as if it was a legitimate history lesson either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 tbf, robin hood never existed so you can make him whatever you want. don't understand people getting worked up about braveheart as if it was a legitimate history lesson either. Okay, said I never knew where to begin with the film... That seems as good a place to start as any really. I believe he did actually have a basis of a historical figure though did he not?... Some bloke in Yorkshire I think. Oh and Richard the Lion-Heart was from a completely different era too. The pine forests of Nottingham were a beauty in the film, as was the Dover to Nottingham jog. Whether Robin existed is open to debate and from Scott's Ivanhoe to Kostner's Robin... Much is just flung together for entertainment purposes. There are plenty historical *******izations going on in these films at the same time though and they involve historical figures in an innacurate events according to historical record... Much like Braveheart. I thought Braveheart was a very entertaining film myself... Utter clap-trap from a historical point f view right enough... Still a good caper though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 robin hood/locksley never existed. undoubtedly he'll have been based on, atleast, one real person. but so is every other imaginary character - the crucial point being that Wallace definitely did. therefore any gigantic errors or important omissions stick out. Robin Hood is a folk character and can be whatever you want him to be. Whilst the first part is geeky this next bit is under geeky. The robin hood concept - for that is what it is - originally had no era that we know of. By around the sixteenth century it was decided to place him in the vacuum of Richard the Lionheart's crusade and imprisonment 1191-4 to give England the protector it so badly needed. At this point historiography was unkind to Richard. The change in view is evident in that the latest robin hood was set in king johns reign - Richard is romantic whilst john is a weasely dick (most movies present the pair as such. Disney's Robin Hood - my favourite - being a brilliant example of this.) This only serves to further the main point though - Hood is a vehicle to serve a particular purpose and this is possible because he is a folk tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 robin hood/locksley never existed. undoubtedly he'll have been based on, atleast, one real person. but so is every other imaginary character - the crucial point being that Wallace definitely did. therefore any gigantic errors or important omissions stick out. Robin Hood is a folk character and can be whatever you want him to be. Whilst the first part is geeky this next bit is under geeky. The robin hood concept - for that is what it is - originally had no era that we know of. By around the sixteenth century it was decided to place him in the vacuum of Richard the Lionheart's crusade and imprisonment 1191-4 to give England the protector it so badly needed. At this point historiography was unkind to Richard. The change in view is evident in that the latest robin hood was set in king johns reign - Richard is romantic whilst john is a weasely dick (most movies present the pair as such. Disney's Robin Hood - my favourite - being a brilliant example of this.) This only serves to further the main point though - Hood is a vehicle to serve a particular purpose and this is possible because he is a folk tale. No expert on the subject Toona so I will not try and argue the finer points. I remember reading somewhere though that the guy -who many modern historians agree was the main inspiration for the fantastic tales- was a Yorkshire-man and that he was from around the time of a King Edward? All just hazy shit though... Sounds like you have a bit more knowledge of the subject. My favourite version is 'Ivanhoe'. Great book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 the earliest verse is from around the thirteenth century and as you say other pieces from the period mention a King Edward. but which one? that's a genuinely interesting point as the character of robin and the perception of 'edward' and the incumbent king are all tied up. If it was based on a real person then id say it was a kernel of truth that grew legs; I mean, otherwise we'd have some sort of record. Certainly the early poems bear hallmarks of other folk characters which means, if it was ever based on a real person, the original had become infected with generic traits. As for his being a yorkshireman? that's where the tales originate. Certainly at some point in the film, Russell Crowe tried a yorkshire accent - so maybe he's from there. Going by that though he could be from margate or limerick or paisley.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 the earliest verse is from around the thirteenth century and as you say other pieces from the period mention a King Edward. but which one? that's a genuinely interesting point as the character of robin and the perception of 'edward' and the incumbent king are all tied up. If it was based on a real person then id say it was a kernel of truth that grew legs; I mean, otherwise we'd have some sort of record. Certainly the early poems bear hallmarks of other folk characters which means, if it was ever based on a real person, the original had become infected with generic traits. As for his being a yorkshireman? that's where the tales originate. Certainly at some point in the film, Russell Crowe tried a yorkshire accent - so maybe he's from there. Going by that though he could be from margate or limerick or paisley.... Spot on. It is a bit like the Rob Roy stories... I know he existed as my uncle is descended from him. Different to RH since there is no definitive birth or death record of that particular man or legend. People look for heroes when oppressed: 'El Mariachi', 'Robin Hood', Sir Lancelot' and 'Rob Roy' or 'William Wallace'. Some of them are more closely based on real people than others. Rob Roy was a real guy but his legend makes him greater than his probable actions and deeds... Then you get guys like Jesus and Robin Hood who were more than likely the culmination of many fertile minds looking for salvation from tough times in human history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 when I was writing about making a figure into a vehicle for your own views I did think of Jesus, but probably best not touch that issue. 'all things to all men's should cover it. my point was though that, should you choose to, you can assess the character of Wallace historically as we have a historic model to base it on. Robin Hood is maleable. but who cares so long as their is violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 when I was writing about making a figure into a vehicle for your own views I did think of Jesus, but probably best not touch that issue. 'all things to all men's should cover it. my point was though that, should you choose to, you can assess the character of Wallace historically as we have a historic model to base it on. Robin Hood is maleable. but who cares so long as their is violence. I was inducing the wrath of a good poster who I have a lot of time for by even mentioning Jesus but I felt he was relevant. Plenty historical figures appearing in feature films that definitely existed, who do not provoke such outcry and clamour as Wallace/Braveheart on here though too. Agree wholeheartedly on the last point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Stinkfinger Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 I was inducing the wrath of a good poster who I have a lot of time for by even mentioning Jesus but I felt he was relevant. Plenty historical figures appearing in feature films that definitely existed, who do not provoke such outcry and clamour as Wallace/Braveheart on here though too. Agree wholeheartedly on the last point. Lionheart exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Lionheart exists. This provides a unique opportunity to the layman like me!!... ... Did Robin Hood exist? Was he yer mate and where was he from? Was Prince John bullied at school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 the earliest verse is from around the thirteenth century and as you say other pieces from the period mention a King Edward. but which one? that's a genuinely interesting point as the character of robin and the perception of 'edward' and the incumbent king are all tied up. If it was based on a real person then id say it was a kernel of truth that grew legs; I mean, otherwise we'd have some sort of record. Certainly the early poems bear hallmarks of other folk characters which means, if it was ever based on a real person, the original had become infected with generic traits. As for his being a yorkshireman? that's where the tales originate. Certainly at some point in the film, Russell Crowe tried a yorkshire accent - so maybe he's from there. Going by that though he could be from margate or limerick or paisley.... What I thought was quite interesting when I read about him was that the name Robin Hood (or Robe Hod or somesuch from the time) had been synonymous with outlaws from the middle of the 13th century at least - and no one knows if that came from the Robin Hood tales or if the Robin Hood tales came from the name. Who'd be a historian and take that wild goose chase research on, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 as ever, whichever one got funding is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.