Discussion:
Rivals Race To Film 1066
(too old to reply)
Ed Stasiak
2008-12-21 22:11:06 UTC
Permalink
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article5375566.ece

Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066

The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now

Almost 1,000 years after King Harold took an arrow in the
eye, one of the most dramatic turning points in English history
is finally to receive the cinema treatment.

Three feature films, with big-name backers and creative teams,
are preparing to refight the battle of Hastings.

They all plan to show the clash between Harold and William
as the falling out of two comrades, using the trusted cinema
combination of violence and contrasting love lives.

Other key battles in English history — such as Agincourt,
Waterloo, Trafalgar, the Spanish Armada and countless fights
from the two world wars — have been filmed, but Hastings
has been ignored.

“It has everything — a big-scale event, a turning point in
European history and great human stories,” said Tom Holland,
the historian and author of Millennium. At the core of all three
films will be the friendship of two “buddies” in which Harold
goes to help William, Duke of Normandy, in battles against
the Bretons before they fall out and come to blows at Hastings
shortly afterwards.

The English king was killed just months after coming to the
throne, opening the way to the Norman conquest.

The companies planning the films include veterans of Holly-
wood historical epics as well as the producer of ER, the
American television medical drama.

“It’s [about] the friendship and trust between two men who
then became great rivals,” said Michael Kuhn, of the British
company Qwerty Films — producer of The Duchess,
starring Keira Knightley — which is working on one of the
versions.

The screenwriter on the second version is William Nicholson,
whose numerous film scripts have included Shadowlands and
last year’s Elizabeth: The Golden Age.

“In Hollywood terms it is a ‘buddy’ movie about two men
which ended in tears,” said Nicholson, whose other work
has included the Roman epic Gladiator, starring Russell
Crowe, with its grandiose opening battle. But Nicholson
added: “I don’t see this primarily as a battle movie.”

Nicholson is writing his Hastings script for the newly formed
film production arm of Shine, a television company whose
hits include Spooks and Merlin.

The third film, which has a working title of William the
Conqueror, has an equally strong pedigree. With a $100m
(£67m) budget, it will be co-produced for Killer Films by
Pamela Koffler, who made the Oscar-winning Boys Don’t
Cry.

The other co–producer is John Wells, who made ER.

“I know a lot of people in the US might not have heard
of William and 1066, but he was a dynamic and charismatic
figure while the battle was a defining moment in history,”
Koffler said.

Many in Britain also have little awareness of the battle in
Sussex beyond knowing of Harold’s unpleasant death
although even the arrow is disputed by many historians.

The comic history book 1066 and All That describes the
Norman conquest as a “Good Thing, as from this time
onwards England stopped being conquered and thus was
able to become top nation”.

Saul Dibb, maker of the films Bullet Boy and The Duchess,
will be Kuhn’s writer and director. The story will centre
partly on the love lives of William and Harold, two warriors
at the height of their powers.

Kuhn said: “Harold was a dashing figure who had numerous
girlfriends — notably Edith Swan-neck. He also had many
children before he eventually married, while William had
this very happy marriage to Matilda who came from Flanders.”

Nicholson said he had not yet established exactly what
caused the rift between the two men. “Something happened
when they were together in France,” he said.

One theory is that Harold was sent to France in 1064 by
his predecessor, Edward the Confessor. According to one
version, his ship ran aground. He was captured by a local
nobleman and William paid his ransom. They then fought
the Bretons together and Harold is said to have sworn an
oath to support the Norman claim to the English throne.

When he returned to England, however, he became king
an act seen as gross betrayal by William, who plotted his
invasion as revenge.

The three combatants

Shine Films
Writer - William Nicholson
(Gladiator, Shadowlands, and Elizabeth: The Golden Age)

Killer Films
Co-producer - Pamela Koffler
(Boys Don’t Cry, Far From Heaven)

Qwerty Films
Producer - Michael Kuhn
(Notting Hill, Trainspotting)
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-21 22:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Excellent!

They will feed many additional arguments and disputations here on
USENET.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Shine Films
Writer - William Nicholson
(Gladiator, Shadowlands, and Elizabeth: The Golden Age)
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article5375566.ece
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Almost 1,000 years after King Harold took an arrow in the
eye, one of the most dramatic turning points in English history
is finally to receive the cinema treatment.
Three feature films, with big-name backers and creative teams,
are preparing to refight the battle of Hastings.
They all plan to show the clash between Harold and William
as the falling out of two comrades, using the trusted cinema
combination of violence and contrasting love lives.
Other key battles in English history — such as Agincourt,
Waterloo, Trafalgar, the Spanish Armada and countless fights
from the two world wars — have been filmed, but Hastings
has been ignored.
“It has everything — a big-scale event, a turning point in
European history and great human stories,” said Tom Holland,
the historian and author of Millennium. At the core of all three
films will be the friendship of two “buddies” in which Harold
goes to help William, Duke of Normandy, in battles against
the Bretons before they fall out and come to blows at Hastings
shortly afterwards.
The English king was killed just months after coming to the
throne, opening the way to the Norman conquest.
The companies planning the films include veterans of Holly-
wood historical epics as well as the producer of ER, the
American television medical drama.
“It’s [about] the friendship and trust between two men who
then became great rivals,” said Michael Kuhn, of the British
company Qwerty Films — producer of The Duchess,
starring Keira Knightley — which is working on one of the
versions.
The screenwriter on the second version is William Nicholson,
whose numerous film scripts have included Shadowlands and
last year’s Elizabeth: The Golden Age.
“In Hollywood terms it is a ‘buddy’ movie about two men
which ended in tears,” said Nicholson, whose other work
has included the Roman epic Gladiator, starring Russell
Crowe, with its grandiose opening battle. But Nicholson
added: “I don’t see this primarily as a battle movie.”
Nicholson is writing his Hastings script for the newly formed
film production arm of Shine, a television company whose
hits include Spooks and Merlin.
The third film, which has a working title of William the
Conqueror, has an equally strong pedigree. With a $100m
(£67m) budget, it will be co-produced for Killer Films by
Pamela Koffler, who made the Oscar-winning Boys Don’t
Cry.
The other co–producer is John Wells, who made ER.
“I know a lot of people in the US might not have heard
of William and 1066, but he was a dynamic and charismatic
figure while the battle was a defining moment in history,”
Koffler said.
Many in Britain also have little awareness of the battle in
Sussex beyond knowing of Harold’s unpleasant death
although even the arrow is disputed by many historians.
The comic history book 1066 and All That describes the
Norman conquest as a “Good Thing, as from this time
onwards England stopped being conquered and thus was
able to become top nation”.
Saul Dibb, maker of the films Bullet Boy and The Duchess,
will be Kuhn’s writer and director. The story will centre
partly on the love lives of William and Harold, two warriors
at the height of their powers.
Kuhn said: “Harold was a dashing figure who had numerous
girlfriends — notably Edith Swan-neck. He also had many
children before he eventually married, while William had
this very happy marriage to Matilda who came from Flanders.”
Nicholson said he had not yet established exactly what
caused the rift between the two men. “Something happened
when they were together in France,” he said.
One theory is that Harold was sent to France in 1064 by
his predecessor, Edward the Confessor. According to one
version, his ship ran aground. He was captured by a local
nobleman and William paid his ransom. They then fought
the Bretons together and Harold is said to have sworn an
oath to support the Norman claim to the English throne.
When he returned to England, however, he became king
an act seen as gross betrayal by William, who plotted his
invasion as revenge.
The three combatants
Shine Films
Writer - William Nicholson
(Gladiator, Shadowlands, and Elizabeth: The Golden Age)
Killer Films
Co-producer - Pamela Koffler
(Boys Don’t Cry, Far From Heaven)
Qwerty Films
Producer - Michael Kuhn
(Notting Hill, Trainspotting)
John Briggs
2008-12-22 00:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Excellent!
They will feed many additional arguments and disputations
here on USENET.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Shine Films
Writer - William Nicholson
(Gladiator, Shadowlands, and Elizabeth: The Golden Age)
That rather depends on who you consider to have been responsible for the
historical inaccuracies in those films.
--
John Briggs
d***@aol.com
2008-12-22 00:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Excellent!
They will feed many additional arguments and disputations
here on USENET.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Shine Films
Writer - William Nicholson
(Gladiator, Shadowlands, and Elizabeth: The Golden Age)
That rather depends on who you consider to have been responsible for the
historical inaccuracies in those films.
--
John Briggs
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Raymond O'Hara
2008-12-22 00:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Excellent!
They will feed many additional arguments and disputations
here on USENET.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Shine Films
Writer - William Nicholson
(Gladiator, Shadowlands, and Elizabeth: The Golden Age)
That rather depends on who you consider to have been responsible for the
historical inaccuracies in those films.
--
John Briggs
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

its been known to happen.
and the battle is small enough to have it full sized
lets hope mel gibson doesn' get involved.
Peter Jason
2008-12-22 06:28:38 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 21, 7:02 pm, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Excellent!
They will feed many additional arguments and
disputations
here on USENET.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Shine Films
Writer - William Nicholson
(Gladiator, Shadowlands, and Elizabeth: The Golden
Age)
That rather depends on who you consider to have been
responsible for the
historical inaccuracies in those films.
--
John Briggs
You think there's a chance in hell either will be
historically
accurate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
its been known to happen.
and the battle is small enough to have it full sized
lets hope mel gibson doesn' get involved.
There was something similar in the 1960s (or whenever) about
Henry II and his shrill queen Eleanor.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0063227/

As I recall, the whole thing was a medieval "Dallas"
concerning an unhappy queen locked into an unhappy marriage,
sharper-than-a-serpent's-tooth ingrate children, uppity
clerics and an effete French king called Phillip.
John Briggs
2008-12-22 00:42:28 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 21, 7:02 pm, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Excellent!
They will feed many additional arguments and
disputations here on USENET.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Shine Films
Writer - William Nicholson
(Gladiator, Shadowlands, and Elizabeth: The Golden
Age)
That rather depends on who you consider to have been
responsible for the historical inaccuracies in those
films.
You think there's a chance in hell either will be
historically accurate?
An interesting use of "either" - seeing that there are three projects :-)

(Queen Elizabeth I once greeted a delegation of eighteen tailors with the
words, "Good Morning, Gentlemen both!"
--
John Briggs
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
2008-12-22 03:54:21 UTC
Permalink
We'll be fortunate if William wins..............
Review of 1066: The Year of the Conquest

http://www.amazon.com/1066-Conquest-David-Armine-Howarth/dp/1556905793

In this short but well written narrative, Howarth paints moving
portraits of King Edward the Confessor, Harold of England, William of
Normandy, Earl Tostig, King Harald Hardrada, the people of England and
other players in the Norman conquest. Howarth does not conceal his
views, admitting at the outset that he "would have liked King Harold,
heartily disliked King Edward the Confessor, felt sorry for Earl
Tostig and terrified of Duke William, and found nothing whatever to
say to King Harald Hardrada of Norway." This is history with a bit of
passion, which makes it all the more enjoyable for the reader.
"1066" will also make you appreciate how hard it is to know anything
about a time like the Middle Ages, when very few people could read and
write and those who could were invariably working for whoever won the
latest battle. It will also give a sense of how contingent history is,
of how the world might have become a very different place if a few
events had happened in a different order. As it was, William the
Conqueror arrived at exactly the right time, while King Harold was at
the other end of England crushing King Harald Hardrada at the Battle
of Stamford Bridge. What would have happened if William's fleet had
been destroyed in a storm, or if he had arrived in England in the
summer of 1066, when King Harold was ready and able to meet him? We'll
never know--King Harold and his army arrived at Hastings exhausted and
depleted, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Howarth approaches 1066 as if it were the stuff of a novel, and he has
been criticized for doing so. I don't know whether Howarth is
perfectly accurate, or whether his "spin" on the story is correct--but
the same can be said of the most boring and heavily footnoted history
that anyone cares to name. For those who enjoy history but also prize
elegant and engaging storytelling, this book is a joy to read.

Is Howarth's "spin" on 1066 accurate? At least William I The
Conqueror King of England,
my ancestor, won...

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-22 06:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
Is Howarth's "spin" on 1066 accurate? At least William I The
Conqueror King of England, my ancestor, won...
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
Indeed...

But many of us here are descended from BOTH Harold and William....

It's no big thing.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

"~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne"
Post by ~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
We'll be fortunate if William wins..............
Review of 1066: The Year of the Conquest
http://www.amazon.com/1066-Conquest-David-Armine-Howarth/dp/1556905793
In this short but well written narrative, Howarth paints moving
portraits of King Edward the Confessor, Harold of England, William of
Normandy, Earl Tostig, King Harald Hardrada, the people of England and
other players in the Norman conquest. Howarth does not conceal his
views, admitting at the outset that he "would have liked King Harold,
heartily disliked King Edward the Confessor, felt sorry for Earl
Tostig and terrified of Duke William, and found nothing whatever to
say to King Harald Hardrada of Norway." This is history with a bit of
passion, which makes it all the more enjoyable for the reader.
"1066" will also make you appreciate how hard it is to know anything
about a time like the Middle Ages, when very few people could read and
write and those who could were invariably working for whoever won the
latest battle. It will also give a sense of how contingent history is,
of how the world might have become a very different place if a few
events had happened in a different order. As it was, William the
Conqueror arrived at exactly the right time, while King Harold was at
the other end of England crushing King Harald Hardrada at the Battle
of Stamford Bridge. What would have happened if William's fleet had
been destroyed in a storm, or if he had arrived in England in the
summer of 1066, when King Harold was ready and able to meet him? We'll
never know--King Harold and his army arrived at Hastings exhausted and
depleted, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Howarth approaches 1066 as if it were the stuff of a novel, and he has
been criticized for doing so. I don't know whether Howarth is
perfectly accurate, or whether his "spin" on the story is correct--but
the same can be said of the most boring and heavily footnoted history
that anyone cares to name. For those who enjoy history but also prize
elegant and engaging storytelling, this book is a joy to read.
Is Howarth's "spin" on 1066 accurate? At least William I The
Conqueror King of England, my ancestor, won...
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
Raymond O'Hara
2008-12-22 23:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by ~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
Is Howarth's "spin" on 1066 accurate? At least William I The
Conqueror King of England, my ancestor, won...
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
Indeed...
But many of us here are descended from BOTH Harold and William....
It's no big thing.
most people are decended from the poor folk .
including you.

funny how folks who remember past lives never were eldred the pig slopper
Paul J Gans
2008-12-22 02:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by John Briggs
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Excellent!
They will feed many additional arguments and disputations
here on USENET.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Shine Films
Writer - William Nicholson
(Gladiator, Shadowlands, and Elizabeth: The Golden Age)
That rather depends on who you consider to have been responsible for the
historical inaccuracies in those films.
--
John Briggs
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Of course not. But the major premise as reported here, that
William and Harold were buddies is a bad start. Why do that?
Why change basic facts? Why not stick to the historical reasons
for Hastings. One could film it from either Harold or William's
point of view and have a fine film, even with various additions
and subtractions to make the story more filmable.

If the film makers want fiction, why not film the killing of
Gog and Magog who were giants (one or two, depending) in their
time. They could take the text from Geoffrey of Monmouth's
*Historia regum Britanniae*. Most folks wouldn't mind what
they did with the story, though Geoffrey's is fun enough.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
SolomonW
2008-12-22 14:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by d***@aol.com
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Of course not. But the major premise as reported here, that
William and Harold were buddies is a bad start. Why do that?
Why change basic facts? Why not stick to the historical reasons
for Hastings. One could film it from either Harold or William's
point of view and have a fine film, even with various additions
and subtractions to make the story more filmable.
It is often extremely hard to make a film historically accurate even if
you want to be accurate. Some points are.

You only have an hour and a half.

For example Gladiator that Alex was talking about, the film director
pointed out that much was unknown that often they had to guess.

Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
Tron
2008-12-22 14:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by SolomonW
Post by d***@aol.com
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
And the one in Gladiator must have been a Vietnam veteran.
The romans napalming the forests of Germania was right out of "Platoon".
Will they ever get over losing that conflict?

T
William Black
2008-12-22 18:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by d***@aol.com
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Of course not. But the major premise as reported here, that
William and Harold were buddies is a bad start. Why do that?
Why change basic facts? Why not stick to the historical reasons
for Hastings. One could film it from either Harold or William's
point of view and have a fine film, even with various additions
and subtractions to make the story more filmable.
It is often extremely hard to make a film historically accurate even if
you want to be accurate. Some points are.
You only have an hour and a half.
For example Gladiator that Alex was talking about, the film director
pointed out that much was unknown that often they had to guess.
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
My experience is that they hire a retired colonel with combat experience,
usually one related by marriage to someone senior in the production company.

Historians do tend to get rather peevish unless there's some sort of factual
content, old military men will sign off on just about anything if allowed
to tell war stories to the crew and actors and is fed a decent lunch along
with his fee.
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 02:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by SolomonW
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by d***@aol.com
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Of course not. But the major premise as reported here, that
William and Harold were buddies is a bad start. Why do that?
Why change basic facts? Why not stick to the historical reasons
for Hastings. One could film it from either Harold or William's
point of view and have a fine film, even with various additions
and subtractions to make the story more filmable.
It is often extremely hard to make a film historically accurate even if
you want to be accurate. Some points are.
You only have an hour and a half.
For example Gladiator that Alex was talking about, the film director
pointed out that much was unknown that often they had to guess.
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
My experience is that they hire a retired colonel with combat experience,
usually one related by marriage to someone senior in the production company.
Historians do tend to get rather peevish unless there's some sort of factual
content, old military men will sign off on just about anything if allowed
to tell war stories to the crew and actors and is fed a decent lunch along
with his fee.
Having talked to a number of those "technical experts" over
the years, I'm yet to find one that was not disgusted with
what the film-makers did.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
James Beck
2008-12-23 04:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by William Black
Post by SolomonW
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by d***@aol.com
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Of course not. But the major premise as reported here, that
William and Harold were buddies is a bad start. Why do that?
Why change basic facts? Why not stick to the historical reasons
for Hastings. One could film it from either Harold or William's
point of view and have a fine film, even with various additions
and subtractions to make the story more filmable.
It is often extremely hard to make a film historically accurate even if
you want to be accurate. Some points are.
You only have an hour and a half.
For example Gladiator that Alex was talking about, the film director
pointed out that much was unknown that often they had to guess.
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
My experience is that they hire a retired colonel with combat experience,
usually one related by marriage to someone senior in the production company.
Historians do tend to get rather peevish unless there's some sort of factual
content, old military men will sign off on just about anything if allowed
to tell war stories to the crew and actors and is fed a decent lunch along
with his fee.
Having talked to a number of those "technical experts" over
the years, I'm yet to find one that was not disgusted with
what the film-makers did.
Some directors are more respectful than others and some audiences are
more vocal. The scifi crowd for example will savage a film's errors in
the blogosphere and the studios have started to feel it at the box
office. They re-did the sky in Titanic after Neil deGrasse Tyson
pointed out that it was wrong. Historians are just too nice about
it...
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 17:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Beck
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by William Black
Post by SolomonW
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by d***@aol.com
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Of course not. But the major premise as reported here, that
William and Harold were buddies is a bad start. Why do that?
Why change basic facts? Why not stick to the historical reasons
for Hastings. One could film it from either Harold or William's
point of view and have a fine film, even with various additions
and subtractions to make the story more filmable.
It is often extremely hard to make a film historically accurate even if
you want to be accurate. Some points are.
You only have an hour and a half.
For example Gladiator that Alex was talking about, the film director
pointed out that much was unknown that often they had to guess.
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
My experience is that they hire a retired colonel with combat experience,
usually one related by marriage to someone senior in the production company.
Historians do tend to get rather peevish unless there's some sort of factual
content, old military men will sign off on just about anything if allowed
to tell war stories to the crew and actors and is fed a decent lunch along
with his fee.
Having talked to a number of those "technical experts" over
the years, I'm yet to find one that was not disgusted with
what the film-makers did.
Some directors are more respectful than others and some audiences are
more vocal. The scifi crowd for example will savage a film's errors in
the blogosphere and the studios have started to feel it at the box
office. They re-did the sky in Titanic after Neil deGrasse Tyson
pointed out that it was wrong. Historians are just too nice about
it...
I'm not sure. I've heard of all sorts of run-ins. Basically
the filmmakers claim to know how to make films that the audience
will be interested in.

In this case, the film-makers might simply look at the Bayeux
Tapestry. This is arguably one of the world's first comic books,
complete with narration and side panelling. It lays the story
out, complete with a sex scene, shows the proper dress, weaponry,
etc., and is even public domain.

Hastings is one of the best recorded battles of the Middle Ages.
There are at least half a dozen more or less contemporaneous
accounts, no two agreeing on everything. So there's lots of
latitude and lots of opportunity for drama.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
William Black
2008-12-23 17:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
In this case, the film-makers might simply look at the Bayeux
Tapestry. This is arguably one of the world's first comic books,
complete with narration and side panelling. It lays the story
out, complete with a sex scene, shows the proper dress, weaponry,
etc., and is even public domain.
The problem here is that Hollywood has a dire reputation with comics as
well.

Read up on the relations between a guy called Alan Moore and Hollywood some
time.

It's all on the net...
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 17:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Paul J Gans
In this case, the film-makers might simply look at the Bayeux
Tapestry. This is arguably one of the world's first comic books,
complete with narration and side panelling. It lays the story
out, complete with a sex scene, shows the proper dress, weaponry,
etc., and is even public domain.
The problem here is that Hollywood has a dire reputation with comics as
well.
Read up on the relations between a guy called Alan Moore and Hollywood some
time.
It's all on the net...
Oh, I know. Hollywood seems to be incapable of just simply
filming a great filmable story. They have to embellish it.

I'd almost bet that one of the 1066 films will somehow bring
in a vision of later British glory by showing a dream montage
of scenes from the later empire.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Tron
2008-12-24 00:15:32 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Paul J Gans
I'd almost bet that one of the 1066 films will somehow bring
in a vision of later British glory by showing a dream montage
of scenes from the later empire.
Standard medieval litterary device
"And I dreamt that my son ... big tree ... red branches... eagle...
all over the world...." etc. etc. etc...

T
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-23 19:33:34 UTC
Permalink
I'm not sure. I've heard of all sorts of run-ins.* Basically
the filmmakers claim to know how to make films that the audience
will be interested in.
*Between academics and film-makers.

...And the film-makers are correct of course.

After all, it's their business. Most of the academics, who are poaching
far afield, are quite clueless about the mass-market film business.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Raymond O'Hara
2008-12-24 18:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I'm not sure. I've heard of all sorts of run-ins.* Basically
the filmmakers claim to know how to make films that the audience
will be interested in.
*Between academics and film-makers.
...And the film-makers are correct of course.
After all, it's their business. Most of the academics, who are poaching
far afield, are quite clueless about the mass-market film business.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
if film makers are so right explain films like "gigli"?
Pete Barrett
2008-12-23 22:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
In this case, the film-makers might simply look at the Bayeux
Tapestry. This is arguably one of the world's first comic books,
complete with narration and side panelling. It lays the story
out, complete with a sex scene, shows the proper dress, weaponry,
etc., and is even public domain.
Probably as well not to let the producers know there's a sex scene. If
they get to learn it, I wonder who'll get the girl? <g>
--
Pete Barrett
William Black
2008-12-23 09:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by William Black
Post by SolomonW
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by d***@aol.com
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Of course not. But the major premise as reported here, that
William and Harold were buddies is a bad start. Why do that?
Why change basic facts? Why not stick to the historical reasons
for Hastings. One could film it from either Harold or William's
point of view and have a fine film, even with various additions
and subtractions to make the story more filmable.
It is often extremely hard to make a film historically accurate even if
you want to be accurate. Some points are.
You only have an hour and a half.
For example Gladiator that Alex was talking about, the film director
pointed out that much was unknown that often they had to guess.
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
My experience is that they hire a retired colonel with combat experience,
usually one related by marriage to someone senior in the production company.
Historians do tend to get rather peevish unless there's some sort of factual
content, old military men will sign off on just about anything if allowed
to tell war stories to the crew and actors and is fed a decent lunch along
with his fee.
Having talked to a number of those "technical experts" over
the years, I'm yet to find one that was not disgusted with
what the film-makers did.
How many of them insisted that their name was taken off the credits?
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Andrew Chaplin
2008-12-23 13:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by William Black
Post by SolomonW
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by d***@aol.com
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Of course not. But the major premise as reported here, that
William and Harold were buddies is a bad start. Why do that?
Why change basic facts? Why not stick to the historical reasons
for Hastings. One could film it from either Harold or William's
point of view and have a fine film, even with various additions
and subtractions to make the story more filmable.
It is often extremely hard to make a film historically accurate even if
you want to be accurate. Some points are.
You only have an hour and a half.
For example Gladiator that Alex was talking about, the film director
pointed out that much was unknown that often they had to guess.
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
My experience is that they hire a retired colonel with combat experience,
usually one related by marriage to someone senior in the production company.
Historians do tend to get rather peevish unless there's some sort of factual
content, old military men will sign off on just about anything if allowed
to tell war stories to the crew and actors and is fed a decent lunch along
with his fee.
Having talked to a number of those "technical experts" over
the years, I'm yet to find one that was not disgusted with
what the film-makers did.
How many of them insisted that their name was taken off the credits?
AFAICR, the Directorate of History of the Department of National Defence (Alec
Douglas and my father among them) withdrew the hem of their collective garment
from the Yugoslav-Italian production of "Dio è con noi" because the producers
just wouldn't listen. Mind you, Douglas was a professional historian and had
something to lose by having his name and his organization associated with the
film.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 17:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by William Black
Post by SolomonW
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by d***@aol.com
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Of course not. But the major premise as reported here, that
William and Harold were buddies is a bad start. Why do that?
Why change basic facts? Why not stick to the historical reasons
for Hastings. One could film it from either Harold or William's
point of view and have a fine film, even with various additions
and subtractions to make the story more filmable.
It is often extremely hard to make a film historically accurate even if
you want to be accurate. Some points are.
You only have an hour and a half.
For example Gladiator that Alex was talking about, the film director
pointed out that much was unknown that often they had to guess.
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
My experience is that they hire a retired colonel with combat experience,
usually one related by marriage to someone senior in the production company.
Historians do tend to get rather peevish unless there's some sort of factual
content, old military men will sign off on just about anything if allowed
to tell war stories to the crew and actors and is fed a decent lunch along
with his fee.
Having talked to a number of those "technical experts" over
the years, I'm yet to find one that was not disgusted with
what the film-makers did.
How many of them insisted that their name was taken off the credits?
The checks are too big and their academic salaries too small.
Plus the fact that they love being flown around the world
to the filming sites and treated to nice dinners.

Nobody's pure.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 02:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by d***@aol.com
You think there's a chance in hell either will be historically
accurate?
Of course not. But the major premise as reported here, that
William and Harold were buddies is a bad start. Why do that?
Why change basic facts? Why not stick to the historical reasons
for Hastings. One could film it from either Harold or William's
point of view and have a fine film, even with various additions
and subtractions to make the story more filmable.
It is often extremely hard to make a film historically accurate even if
you want to be accurate. Some points are.
You only have an hour and a half.
For example Gladiator that Alex was talking about, the film director
pointed out that much was unknown that often they had to guess.
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
They frequently do that and then ignore what the historians have
to say.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
SolomonW
2008-12-23 12:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by SolomonW
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
They frequently do that and then ignore what the historians have
to say.
An interesting article on this topis.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=400161&sectioncode=26
a***@hotmail.com
2008-12-26 00:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by SolomonW
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
They frequently do that and then ignore what the historians have
to say.
An interesting article on this topis.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=400161§...
This article clearly misses the difference between 'educational movie'
and entertainment. The 1st category tends to be more accurate but also
considerably more boring. The 2nd is for getting the money and the
main requirement to it is to be fun to watch. If they don't contain
too many 'mighty cranberries', it is a bonus.

"But what should a consultant academic do if a writer decides that the
only effective way of dramatising the relationship between Elizabeth I
and Mary Queen of Scots is by inventing a meeting between them? This
is surely a legitimate technique (and may help to encourage interest
in Elizabethan history), but many academics are wary of being
associated with films that take such liberties."

The only comment on this is that these 'academics' are couple
centuries late with their bitching: the (probably) 1st and best-known
sin of this kind had been committed by Friedrich von Schiller in his
tragedy "Maria Stuart" (written in 1801). This is a famous drama
played for couple centuries all over the world so the only thing they
would be demonstrating by their 'wariness' is that they could do with
some improvement in the area of a general culture. I wonder
if ...er... 'academics' disrupt performance of the Shakespear's plays
with the shouts that the cannons were not known at the times of
Macbeth (well, this would probably take a military historian) or that
Bohemia does not have a seacoast (ah well, it is on a continent so who
knows/cares) ? :-)

Not that I have anything good to say about "Kingdom of Heaven" (and
not that I managed to suffer through the whole movie) but at least
part of "anachronistically loses his faith and commits himself to the
cause of religious coexistence" is not too anachronistic if one keeps
in mind Friederich II with his, shall we say, 'absense of a religious
zeal' and willingness to deal with the Muslims (cultivating Saracens
in Sicily, friendship with the Sultan of Egypt). And, approximately at
the same period, Ghengis founded empire with practically absolute
religious tolerance (how about having Shamanist, Christian and Muslim
in the same family without trying to kick the s--t out of each
other?).
Paul J Gans
2008-12-26 01:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by SolomonW
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by SolomonW
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
They frequently do that and then ignore what the historians have
to say.
An interesting article on this topis.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=400161§...
This article clearly misses the difference between 'educational movie'
and entertainment. The 1st category tends to be more accurate but also
considerably more boring. The 2nd is for getting the money and the
main requirement to it is to be fun to watch. If they don't contain
too many 'mighty cranberries', it is a bonus.
"But what should a consultant academic do if a writer decides that the
only effective way of dramatising the relationship between Elizabeth I
and Mary Queen of Scots is by inventing a meeting between them? This
is surely a legitimate technique (and may help to encourage interest
in Elizabethan history), but many academics are wary of being
associated with films that take such liberties."
The only comment on this is that these 'academics' are couple
centuries late with their bitching: the (probably) 1st and best-known
sin of this kind had been committed by Friedrich von Schiller in his
tragedy "Maria Stuart" (written in 1801). This is a famous drama
played for couple centuries all over the world so the only thing they
would be demonstrating by their 'wariness' is that they could do with
some improvement in the area of a general culture. I wonder
if ...er... 'academics' disrupt performance of the Shakespear's plays
with the shouts that the cannons were not known at the times of
Macbeth (well, this would probably take a military historian) or that
Bohemia does not have a seacoast (ah well, it is on a continent so who
knows/cares) ? :-)
The problem isn't accuracy. The problem comes when the movie
makers CLAIM to have done a historically accurate production.
Remember "Braveheart"?

Shakespeare never claimed historical accuracy.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
a***@hotmail.com
2008-12-26 02:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by SolomonW
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by SolomonW
Having said that it is interesting that often the only historians that
they hire are military.
They frequently do that and then ignore what the historians have
to say.
An interesting article on this topis.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=400161§...
This article clearly misses the difference between 'educational movie'
and entertainment. The 1st category tends to be more accurate but also
considerably more boring. The 2nd is for getting the money and the
main requirement to it is to be fun to watch. If they don't contain
too many 'mighty cranberries', it is a bonus.
"But what should a consultant academic do if a writer decides that the
only effective way of dramatising the relationship between Elizabeth I
and Mary Queen of Scots is by inventing a meeting between them? This
is surely a legitimate technique (and may help to encourage interest
in Elizabethan history), but many academics are wary of being
associated with films that take such liberties."
The only comment on this is that these 'academics' are couple
centuries late with their bitching: the (probably) 1st and best-known
sin of this kind had been committed by Friedrich von Schiller in his
tragedy "Maria Stuart" (written in 1801). This is a famous drama
played for couple centuries all over the world so the only thing they
would be demonstrating by their 'wariness' is that they could do with
some improvement in the area of a general culture. I wonder
if ...er... 'academics' disrupt performance of the Shakespear's  plays
with the shouts that the cannons were not known at the times of
Macbeth (well, this would probably take a military historian) or that
Bohemia does not have a seacoast (ah well, it is on a continent so who
knows/cares) ? :-)
The problem isn't accuracy.  
It is, according to the article.
The problem comes when the movie
makers CLAIM to have done a historically accurate production.
Wrong. The problem comes when author compares BBC production with
Hollywood. You can figure out who are the bad guys. :-)
Remember "Braveheart"?
Mel Wallace (who was NOT mentioned in this article) had been claiming,
IIRC, accuracy of the historical _details_ and one of the general idea
(one can safely say that both were far from being perfect). Why would
it be problem for anybody except, perhaps, for an Englishman who went
to a movie theater filled with the Scots, is beyond me.
Shakespeare never claimed historical accuracy.
Most of the Hollywood cases listed in the referenced article did not
claim it as well. And, as far as a fictional meeting between Lyz and
her cousin is concerned, there is a venerable literary tradition
behind this scene and any bitching about its inaccuracy in a fictional
movie simply shows that the author is not familiar with a classic
literature.
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-26 03:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Hilarious!

Pogue Gans is doing a...

Back & Fill.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Post by Paul J Gans
The problem isn't accuracy. The problem comes when the movie
makers CLAIM to have done a historically accurate production.
Remember "Braveheart"?
Shakespeare never claimed historical accuracy.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
2008-12-22 01:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Excellent!
They will feed many additional arguments and disputations
here on USENET.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Shine Films
Writer - William Nicholson
(Gladiator, Shadowlands, and Elizabeth: The Golden Age)
That rather depends on who you consider to have been responsible for the
historical inaccuracies in those films.
Do you really think he noticed them?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
W***@gmail.com
2008-12-28 03:08:08 UTC
Permalink
And here I thought you might have had a serious genealogical point to make. . . .
Jared L. Olar
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:37:52 -0600, "Jared & Christina Olar"
The "t" in the word "the" was capitalised.
That's it. Hines has serious problems with the rules for
capitalisation.
James
James Hogg <***@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote:

"That wasn't the error I was referring to."

Can anyone spot the error in this statement?

meep, meep
James Hogg
2008-12-28 12:18:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:08:08 -0800 (PST),
Post by W***@gmail.com
And here I thought you might have had a serious genealogical point to make. . . .
Jared L. Olar
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:37:52 -0600, "Jared & Christina Olar"
The "t" in the word "the" was capitalised.
That's it. Hines has serious problems with the rules for
capitalisation.
James
"That wasn't the error I was referring to."
Can anyone spot the error in this statement?
meep, meep
Can anyone spot the errors in the following quotation from
Bill Arnold, a former professor and kookademic now reduced to
meeping under various assumed names?

"Maybe, just maybe, this is so erroneous in scope and content
from known scholarship because it appears to be from an online
tabloid in Canada. What have they got against Great Britain and
the bard to allege such misinformation?"

James
Marcus Aurelius
2008-12-23 01:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for the original post. I look forward with great expectation
to seeing "1066". As per other commentators, I know that I had
ancestors that fought with William (member Magna Charta Barons and
Colonial Order of the Crown). I, also, probably had ancestors that
fought with Harold. I know that the Comptons fought with Harold (my
maternal grandfather's name is Compton).
I wish that they would make an epic movie about the Magna Charta, 1215
at Runnymeade. That to me would be a trully interesting, entertaining,
and provocative movie.
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 02:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcus Aurelius
Thank you for the original post. I look forward with great expectation
to seeing "1066". As per other commentators, I know that I had
ancestors that fought with William (member Magna Charta Barons and
Colonial Order of the Crown). I, also, probably had ancestors that
fought with Harold. I know that the Comptons fought with Harold (my
maternal grandfather's name is Compton).
I wish that they would make an epic movie about the Magna Charta, 1215
at Runnymeade. That to me would be a trully interesting, entertaining,
and provocative movie.
Why? Magna Carta was ignored by everybody for hundreds of
years until the US made some noise about it a while back.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-23 04:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Right!

Especially showing the critical role of Great-Grandfather William
Marshal.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Post by Marcus Aurelius
I wish that they would make an epic movie about the Magna Charta, 1215
at Runnymede. That to me would be a truly interesting, entertaining,
and provocative movie.
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
2008-12-23 03:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcus Aurelius
Thank you for the original post. I look forward with great expectation
to seeing "1066". As per other commentators, I know that I had
ancestors that fought with William (member Magna Charta Barons and
Colonial Order of the Crown). I, also, probably had ancestors that
fought with Harold. I know that the Comptons fought with Harold (my
maternal grandfather's name is Compton).
Is Howarth's "spin" on 1066 accurate? I take it nobody has read
Howarth's 1066? Anybody challenge this review?

________________________________________

ivplay's Full Review: David Armine Howarth - 1066: The Year of the
Conquest

http://www.epinions.com/review/1066_The_Year_of_the_Conquest_by_David_Armine_Howarth/content_221325004420

Have you ever had the feeling that history as it was written must be
wrong? David Howarth must have had just this feeling, the result of
which is the book 1066: The Year of the Conquest. In all fairness, Mr.
Howarth researched his topic extensively and wrote a very easy to read
account of an exciting subject; the conquest of England by Duke
William of Normandy in the year 1066. His obvious slant for all things
English, while proclaimed at the beginning of the book and documented
where suppositions occur, reduces the reading enjoyment of the text.
It seems as though Mr. Howarth has done for King Harold and the
English what the Norman chroniclers did for Duke William; made him out
to be a saint of a man whom popular writing and opinion didn't look
fairly upon. The truth probably lies somewhere in between, as so often
is the case.

1066 starts with the New Year's Day celebration and ends with New
Years Eve of the same year, 1066. What happens in between forever
alters the history of England, and the happenstance and intrigue that
allows these events to occur are well detailed within this text. The
account begins with a look into a small village's life in Southern
England, Horstede. The glimpse that this gives the reader into the
life and times of a typical Englishman is artfully portrayed as well
as insightful. We often need to understand how the people of the time
were living in order to understand how the events of the time affected
the everyman, and Howarth does a wonderful job of setting this portion
of the book up.

That being said, the book jerkily transitions to the political
happenings that led to the throne of England passing from Edward the
Confessor to Harold, son of Godwin near the turn of the year. Duke
William of Normandy is righteously enraged (or not, depending on which
side you believe) when the throne passes to Harold, as he was
independently promised the succession of King of England by both
Edward and Harold at different times. Having secured the whole of
Normandy through conquest, he quickly makes public his plans for an
invasion and usurpation of the throne of England. He seeks and secures
papal support for his cause and according to Howarth this is the
beginning of the end for Harold. This along with an amazing run of bad
luck is what breaks Harold's spirit, and his lack of leadership at the
battle of Hastings so quickly after his amazing triumph against the
Norse at Stamford Bridge presumably keeps the British from throwing
the Normans back into the Channel. The crippling loss leads to the
crowning of King William I, and the rest, as they say, is history.

While it does seem likely that the history books look too kindly upon
William the Conqueror (the victors author the history books, after
all) this book seems to take it too far to the other side. The reality
of the events of the year 1066 probably lies somewhere in between the
two, and reading through this book will allow the student to formulate
their own opinion. Overall this is a very well written book that will
introduce the reader to the happenings of 1066, a year that forever
changed the history of England.

__________________________

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
Julian Richards
2008-12-25 20:49:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:25:56 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Excellent!
They will feed many additional arguments and disputations here on
USENET.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Shine Films
Writer - William Nicholson
(Gladiator, Shadowlands, and Elizabeth: The Golden Age)
But are you not filled with dread that they will all go the way of the
"Scottish Film" and be completely ghastly on the accuracy front?

And yet the opportunity for accuracy and a great film are both there.
As a writer of a completely awful uncommercial screenplay, I have
thought about 1066 as a film proposition.

1066 is a year of three kings, three brothers vs three brothers and
three men who would be king. Edith Swanneck provides a love interest
and the idea of no central hero but three central characters who the
audience must choose between has all sorts of possibilities. There is
no need for the crap that Hollywood is most certain to add.


Julian Richards
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-25 21:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Pogue Gans should write a screenplay and find himself an agent....

Said agent can then flog the screenplay around the various Hollywood
studios and see if he can find any takers.

Great Fun!
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Paul J Gans
2008-12-22 01:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article5375566.ece
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Almost 1,000 years after King Harold took an arrow in the
eye, one of the most dramatic turning points in English history
is finally to receive the cinema treatment.
Three feature films, with big-name backers and creative teams,
are preparing to refight the battle of Hastings.
They all plan to show the clash between Harold and William
as the falling out of two comrades, using the trusted cinema
combination of violence and contrasting love lives.
Well, uh, no.

There is no particular evidence that Harold and William were
buddies. It is true that they met and that William, as was
the custom of the time, showered gifts and honors on Harold.
Harold was, at that time, probably the leading man of the
kingdom, possibly including the king.

But buddies? No.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
a***@hotmail.com
2008-12-22 04:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/fil...
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Almost 1,000 years after King Harold took an arrow in the
eye, one of the most dramatic turning points in English history
is finally to receive the cinema treatment.
Three feature films, with big-name backers and creative teams,
are preparing to refight the battle of Hastings.
They all plan to show the clash between Harold and William
as the falling out of two comrades, using the trusted cinema
combination of violence and contrasting love lives.
Well, uh, no.
There is no particular evidence that Harold and William were
buddies.  It is true that they met and that William, as was
the custom of the time, showered gifts and honors on Harold.
Harold was, at that time, probably the leading man of the
kingdom, possibly including the king.
But buddies?  No.
Comparing to the historical 'jewels' like 'Gladiator' and 'Elizabeth',
this looks like a tiny problem. :-)
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 02:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/fil...
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Almost 1,000 years after King Harold took an arrow in the
eye, one of the most dramatic turning points in English history
is finally to receive the cinema treatment.
Three feature films, with big-name backers and creative teams,
are preparing to refight the battle of Hastings.
They all plan to show the clash between Harold and William
as the falling out of two comrades, using the trusted cinema
combination of violence and contrasting love lives.
Well, uh, no.
There is no particular evidence that Harold and William were
buddies.  It is true that they met and that William, as was
the custom of the time, showered gifts and honors on Harold.
Harold was, at that time, probably the leading man of the
kingdom, possibly including the king.
But buddies?  No.
Comparing to the historical 'jewels' like 'Gladiator' and 'Elizabeth',
this looks like a tiny problem. :-)
Not at all. It covers the major historical event. Both Harold
and William wanted power, as much of it as they could handle.
With the death of the English king, there was a power vacuum
that needed filling. The result was awful for the English.

Ever after, both the English and the French kings, as well as
kings elsewhere, took pains to ensure that there would never
be that sort of power vacuum again. There measures didn't
always work, but they gave rise to all sorts of things that
have affected history.

Indeed, one of them is the notion of a Vice President in the US.

To pretend that this was a simple squabble between former
beer-drinkng buddies is to muddy the entire history.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
a***@hotmail.com
2008-12-23 18:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/fil...
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Almost 1,000 years after King Harold took an arrow in the
eye, one of the most dramatic turning points in English history
is finally to receive the cinema treatment.
Three feature films, with big-name backers and creative teams,
are preparing to refight the battle of Hastings.
They all plan to show the clash between Harold and William
as the falling out of two comrades, using the trusted cinema
combination of violence and contrasting love lives.
Well, uh, no.
There is no particular evidence that Harold and William were
buddies.  It is true that they met and that William, as was
the custom of the time, showered gifts and honors on Harold.
Harold was, at that time, probably the leading man of the
kingdom, possibly including the king.
But buddies?  No.
Comparing to the historical 'jewels' like 'Gladiator' and 'Elizabeth',
this looks like a tiny problem. :-)
Not at all.  It covers the major historical event.  
Well, 'Elizabeth' is suppossedly about the major historical events and
this did not prevent its creators from being ...er... creative. BTW,
did you see '300'? (IMHO, "Meet the Spartans" much more accurate
historically).
Both Harold
and William wanted power, as much of it as they could handle.
How unusual. :-)
With the death of the English king, there was a power vacuum
that needed filling.  The result was awful for the English.
Why? Instead of an English-speaking (BTW, was it "English" or some
kind of German) hoodlum they got a (bad) French-speaking one and had
to learn an extra language (I understand that THIS may be awuful for
some English speakers :-)).

But think of all the future glory.....
Ever after, both the English and the French kings, as well as
kings elsewhere, took pains to ensure that there would never
be that sort of power vacuum again.
Yeah, sure. The War for the Spanish Succession, the War for the
Austrian Succession, etc. all the way to Franco-Prussian War (with the
numerous small-scale thingies like Mantuan War). As far as 'pain' is
involved, there was a lot of it. To think about it, even The 116
(IIRC) YW was due to the questionable arrangements...
 There measures didn't
always work,
To put it mildly. :-)
but they gave rise to all sorts of things that
have affected history.
Like re-mapping Spanish posessions, Silesia going to Prussia, etc.
Indeed, one of them is the notion of a Vice President in the US.
As you understand, this is NOT applicable to the monarchies and to
anything that took place before late XVIII (aka, totally irrelevant
example).
To pretend that this was a simple squabble between former
beer-drinkng buddies is to muddy the entire history.
"The war was the only royal entertainment in which subjects also
participated."
:-)
Paul J Gans
2008-12-24 00:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/fil...
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Almost 1,000 years after King Harold took an arrow in the
eye, one of the most dramatic turning points in English history
is finally to receive the cinema treatment.
Three feature films, with big-name backers and creative teams,
are preparing to refight the battle of Hastings.
They all plan to show the clash between Harold and William
as the falling out of two comrades, using the trusted cinema
combination of violence and contrasting love lives.
Well, uh, no.
There is no particular evidence that Harold and William were
buddies.  It is true that they met and that William, as was
the custom of the time, showered gifts and honors on Harold.
Harold was, at that time, probably the leading man of the
kingdom, possibly including the king.
But buddies?  No.
Comparing to the historical 'jewels' like 'Gladiator' and 'Elizabeth',
this looks like a tiny problem. :-)
Not at all.  It covers the major historical event.  
Well, 'Elizabeth' is suppossedly about the major historical events and
this did not prevent its creators from being ...er... creative. BTW,
did you see '300'? (IMHO, "Meet the Spartans" much more accurate
historically).
Both Harold
and William wanted power, as much of it as they could handle.
How unusual. :-)
With the death of the English king, there was a power vacuum
that needed filling.  The result was awful for the English.
Why? Instead of an English-speaking (BTW, was it "English" or some
kind of German) hoodlum they got a (bad) French-speaking one and had
to learn an extra language (I understand that THIS may be awuful for
some English speakers :-)).
But think of all the future glory.....
Ever after, both the English and the French kings, as well as
kings elsewhere, took pains to ensure that there would never
be that sort of power vacuum again.
Yeah, sure. The War for the Spanish Succession, the War for the
Austrian Succession, etc. all the way to Franco-Prussian War (with the
numerous small-scale thingies like Mantuan War). As far as 'pain' is
involved, there was a lot of it. To think about it, even The 116
(IIRC) YW was due to the questionable arrangements...
 There measures didn't
always work,
To put it mildly. :-)
but they gave rise to all sorts of things that
have affected history.
Like re-mapping Spanish posessions, Silesia going to Prussia, etc.
Indeed, one of them is the notion of a Vice President in the US.
As you understand, this is NOT applicable to the monarchies and to
anything that took place before late XVIII (aka, totally irrelevant
example).
Now now Alex. People began creating co-kings and heir apparents,
neither of which existed in any numbers before Hastings. The
French monarchy took the lead in this, but the English weren't
far behind.

Remember Henry I making his nobles swear to support his
daughter as Queen regnant?

The notion of the "Prince of Wales" or the "Dauphin" comes
from this problem.

Yes, it failed at times. And most every time it did there
was a bloody war. Kings went to some trouble to prevent this
from happening.

The entire problem with Edward II of England and his wife,
the sister of the king of France, was one major strand that
led to the 100 Years War. When the French king died with
no heir, it left her son, Edward III, the person closest
to the late king in relationship and the putative heir.

The French resisted this and the next 150 or so years were
spent in serious troubles. Troubles so bad that the oncoming
Northern Renaissance that began in the 12th century stopped
dead in its tracks.

Hastings was a serious business with serious consequences,
consequences that we might pay attention to in today's
world.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
a***@hotmail.com
2008-12-24 04:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/fil...
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Almost 1,000 years after King Harold took an arrow in the
eye, one of the most dramatic turning points in English history
is finally to receive the cinema treatment.
Three feature films, with big-name backers and creative teams,
are preparing to refight the battle of Hastings.
They all plan to show the clash between Harold and William
as the falling out of two comrades, using the trusted cinema
combination of violence and contrasting love lives.
Well, uh, no.
There is no particular evidence that Harold and William were
buddies.  It is true that they met and that William, as was
the custom of the time, showered gifts and honors on Harold.
Harold was, at that time, probably the leading man of the
kingdom, possibly including the king.
But buddies?  No.
Comparing to the historical 'jewels' like 'Gladiator' and 'Elizabeth',
this looks like a tiny problem. :-)
Not at all.  It covers the major historical event.  
Well, 'Elizabeth' is suppossedly about the major historical events and
this did not prevent its creators from being ...er... creative. BTW,
did you see '300'? (IMHO, "Meet the Spartans" much more accurate
historically).
Both Harold
and William wanted power, as much of it as they could handle.
How unusual. :-)
With the death of the English king, there was a power vacuum
that needed filling.  The result was awful for the English.
Why? Instead of an English-speaking (BTW, was it "English" or some
kind of German) hoodlum they got a (bad) French-speaking one and had
to learn an extra language (I understand that THIS may be awuful for
some English speakers :-)).
But think of all the future glory.....
Ever after, both the English and the French kings, as well as
kings elsewhere, took pains to ensure that there would never
be that sort of power vacuum again.
Yeah, sure. The War for the Spanish Succession, the War for the
Austrian Succession, etc. all the way to Franco-Prussian War (with the
numerous small-scale thingies like Mantuan War). As far as 'pain' is
involved, there was a lot of it. To think about it, even The 116
(IIRC) YW was due to the questionable arrangements...
 There measures didn't
always work,
To put it mildly. :-)
but they gave rise to all sorts of things that
have affected history.
Like re-mapping Spanish posessions, Silesia going to Prussia, etc.
Indeed, one of them is the notion of a Vice President in the US.
As you understand, this is NOT applicable to the monarchies and to
anything that took place before late XVIII (aka, totally irrelevant
example).
Now now Alex.  People began creating co-kings and heir apparents,
neither of which existed in any numbers before Hastings.
I don't think that this is true.
 The
French monarchy took the lead in this, but the English weren't
far behind.
Remember Henry I making his nobles swear to support his
daughter as Queen regnant?
Are you saying that the heirs never had been defined during king's
lifetime before Hastings?
The notion of the "Prince of Wales" or the "Dauphin" comes
from this problem.
Not immediately after Hastings and not as a result of Hastings.
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-24 22:40:26 UTC
Permalink
True...

William The Conqueror's eldest son, Robert, became Duke of Normandy.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
It looks like we have a classic case of confusion. Paul's statement
had been framed in such a way that it supposedly should be applicable
outside England. AFAIK, it is not and it would be quite normal to
expect that William and his successors brought with them at least some
of the continental habits.
BTW, IIRC, William's oldest son did not become heir to the English
throne.
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
2008-12-25 03:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
True...
William The Conqueror's eldest son, Robert, became Duke of Normandy.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
It looks like we have a classic case of confusion. Paul's statement
had been framed in such a way that it supposedly should be applicable
outside England. AFAIK, it is not and it would be quite normal to
expect that William and his successors brought with them at least some
of the continental habits.
BTW, IIRC, William's oldest son did not become heir to the English
throne.
BIOGRAPHY
Henry was born in 1068 in Selby, Yorkshire, the only child of William
the Conqueror to be born in England. He was also the only son to be
born in 'purple' as only two years previously William had become king
of England. As the youngest child he was his mother's favourite and
when she died she left him her English estates.

He had a good education, learning to read and write Latin as well as
English and Law. In 1086 he was knighted by his father. When his
father died in 1087 his brother Robert received the duchy of Normandy
while William II Rufus became king of England. Henry, having estates
in both territories like so many other Norman barons, had to maintain
his relations with two overlords.

When in 1100 William Rufus mysteriously died, Henry was elected to
succeed as king of England and on 6 August he was crowned in
Westminster Abbey. His first act as king was to restore Anselm as
archbishop of Canterbury, then he started to look for a bride. For his
queen he selected Edith of Scotland, daughter of King Malcolm Canmore
and, more importantly, of St. Margaret of Wessex who was a descendant
of the kings of England prior to the Conquest. In honour of the king's
mother, Matilda of Flanders, Edith changed her name to Matilda.
Restoring Anselm did not ensure peace in the kingdom as he refused to
do homage to the king, claiming to hold the church estates in the name
of the pope. Anselm was then forced into exile, and peace was restored
only in 1107 when the king's sister Adela, countess of Blois, found a
solution acceptable to both: bishops would pay homage to the king and
the king would allow clerical investiture.

When Henry's brother Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy returned from
Crusade he proved such a bad ruler that the barons in Normandy
revolted and asked for Henry's support. Henry was also motivated by a
wish to eliminate the continuing threat from Robert and the drain on
his fiscal resources from the annual payment to him, so in 1105 he led
an expeditionary force across the English Channel. On the morning of
28 September 1106, exactly 40 years after their father had landed in
England, the decisive battle between his two sons took place in the
small village of Tinchebray. Robert's army was defeated and he was
captured. Robert was imprisoned and Henry became duke of Normandy.

Henry was a good diplomat; even though troubles within Normandy and
with France continued, he made a successful alliance when his only
daughter Matilda married the Emperor Heinrich V in 1114. In 1119 his
only son William went to the continent and married a daughter of the
count of Anjou. On the journey home the 'White Ship' was wrecked and
William with his entourage drowned. Henry's wife had died in 1118, but
he waited until 1122 before taking a second wife, Adeliza of Louvain.
He had fathered two legitimate and probably nineteen illegitimate
children, but his second marriage remained childless.

In 1126 Henry designated his daughter, the widowed Empress Matilda, as
his successor; and in 1127 he selected Geoffrey, count of Anjou, as
her second husband even though he was ten years younger than Matilda.
Henry travelled a great deal between England and Normandy, and on 1
August 1135 he left England for the last time. He died 1 December 1135
at St. Denis-le-Fermont near Gisors. His body was taken back to
England and buried at Reading Abbey.

Sources 1. [S00011] ~Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, London,
1973 , Reference: page 193.
2. [S00119] The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles,
Prince of Wales, Edinburgh, 1977, Paget, Gerald, Reference: page 12.
3. [quote source]: http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00000238&tree=LEO

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
Paul J Gans
2008-12-26 01:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
BIOGRAPHY
Henry was born in 1068 in Selby, Yorkshire, the only child of William
the Conqueror to be born in England. He was also the only son to be
born in 'purple' as only two years previously William had become king
of England. As the youngest child he was his mother's favourite and
when she died she left him her English estates.
He had a good education, learning to read and write Latin as well as
English and Law. In 1086 he was knighted by his father. When his
father died in 1087 his brother Robert received the duchy of Normandy
while William II Rufus became king of England. Henry, having estates
in both territories like so many other Norman barons, had to maintain
his relations with two overlords.
When in 1100 William Rufus mysteriously died,
Wasn't mysterious at all. Dying in a hunting accident was
not uncommon at all. Of course, when a king dies, conspiracy
theories abound, but no particular evidence has ever turned up.
Post by ~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
Henry was elected to
succeed as king of England and on 6 August he was crowned in
Westminster Abbey.
Not quite. Henry rushed to take control of the Royal Treasury
and to head off his brother who happened to be in Normandy at
the time. Having the cash and the troops made Henry's "election"
possible.
Post by ~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
His first act as king was to restore Anselm as
archbishop of Canterbury, then he started to look for a bride. For his
queen he selected Edith of Scotland, daughter of King Malcolm Canmore
and, more importantly, of St. Margaret of Wessex who was a descendant
of the kings of England prior to the Conquest. In honour of the king's
mother, Matilda of Flanders, Edith changed her name to Matilda.
Restoring Anselm did not ensure peace in the kingdom as he refused to
do homage to the king, claiming to hold the church estates in the name
of the pope. Anselm was then forced into exile, and peace was restored
only in 1107 when the king's sister Adela, countess of Blois, found a
solution acceptable to both: bishops would pay homage to the king and
the king would allow clerical investiture.
When Henry's brother Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy returned from
Crusade he proved such a bad ruler that the barons in Normandy
revolted and asked for Henry's support. Henry was also motivated by a
wish to eliminate the continuing threat from Robert and the drain on
his fiscal resources from the annual payment to him, so in 1105 he led
an expeditionary force across the English Channel. On the morning of
28 September 1106, exactly 40 years after their father had landed in
England, the decisive battle between his two sons took place in the
small village of Tinchebray. Robert's army was defeated and he was
captured. Robert was imprisoned and Henry became duke of Normandy.
There's a bit more to this than just that, but never mind. This
is close enough.
Post by ~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
Henry was a good diplomat; even though troubles within Normandy and
with France continued, he made a successful alliance when his only
daughter Matilda married the Emperor Heinrich V in 1114. In 1119 his
only son William went to the continent and married a daughter of the
count of Anjou. On the journey home the 'White Ship' was wrecked and
William with his entourage drowned. Henry's wife had died in 1118, but
he waited until 1122 before taking a second wife, Adeliza of Louvain.
He had fathered two legitimate and probably nineteen illegitimate
children, but his second marriage remained childless.
In 1126 Henry designated his daughter, the widowed Empress Matilda, as
his successor; and in 1127 he selected Geoffrey, count of Anjou, as
her second husband even though he was ten years younger than Matilda.
Henry travelled a great deal between England and Normandy, and on 1
August 1135 he left England for the last time. He died 1 December 1135
at St. Denis-le-Fermont near Gisors. His body was taken back to
England and buried at Reading Abbey.
Sources 1. [S00011] ~Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, London,
1973 , Reference: page 193.
2. [S00119] The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles,
Prince of Wales, Edinburgh, 1977, Paget, Gerald, Reference: page 12.
3. [quote source]: http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00000238&tree=LEO
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
--
--- Paul J. Gans
James Hogg
2008-12-25 13:56:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:40:26 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
True...
William The Conqueror's eldest son, Robert, became Duke of Normandy.
Can anyone spot the error in this statement?

James
Paul J Gans
2008-12-25 00:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/fil...
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Almost 1,000 years after King Harold took an arrow in the
eye, one of the most dramatic turning points in English history
is finally to receive the cinema treatment.
Three feature films, with big-name backers and creative teams,
are preparing to refight the battle of Hastings.
They all plan to show the clash between Harold and William
as the falling out of two comrades, using the trusted cinema
combination of violence and contrasting love lives.
Well, uh, no.
There is no particular evidence that Harold and William were
buddies.  It is true that they met and that William, as was
the custom of the time, showered gifts and honors on Harold.
Harold was, at that time, probably the leading man of the
kingdom, possibly including the king.
But buddies?  No.
Comparing to the historical 'jewels' like 'Gladiator' and 'Elizabeth',
this looks like a tiny problem. :-)
Not at all.  It covers the major historical event.  
Well, 'Elizabeth' is suppossedly about the major historical events and
this did not prevent its creators from being ...er... creative. BTW,
did you see '300'? (IMHO, "Meet the Spartans" much more accurate
historically).
Both Harold
and William wanted power, as much of it as they could handle.
How unusual. :-)
With the death of the English king, there was a power vacuum
that needed filling.  The result was awful for the English.
Why? Instead of an English-speaking (BTW, was it "English" or some
kind of German) hoodlum they got a (bad) French-speaking one and had
to learn an extra language (I understand that THIS may be awuful for
some English speakers :-)).
But think of all the future glory.....
Ever after, both the English and the French kings, as well as
kings elsewhere, took pains to ensure that there would never
be that sort of power vacuum again.
Yeah, sure. The War for the Spanish Succession, the War for the
Austrian Succession, etc. all the way to Franco-Prussian War (with the
numerous small-scale thingies like Mantuan War). As far as 'pain' is
involved, there was a lot of it. To think about it, even The 116
(IIRC) YW was due to the questionable arrangements...
 There measures didn't
always work,
To put it mildly. :-)
but they gave rise to all sorts of things that
have affected history.
Like re-mapping Spanish posessions, Silesia going to Prussia, etc.
Indeed, one of them is the notion of a Vice President in the US.
As you understand, this is NOT applicable to the monarchies and to
anything that took place before late XVIII (aka, totally irrelevant
example).
Now now Alex.  People began creating co-kings and heir apparents,
neither of which existed in any numbers before Hastings.
I don't think that this is true.
 The
French monarchy took the lead in this, but the English weren't
far behind.
Remember Henry I making his nobles swear to support his
daughter as Queen regnant?
Are you saying that the heirs never had been defined during king's
lifetime before Hastings?
Certainly not in England and I don't believe so in France
either.
Post by a***@hotmail.com
The notion of the "Prince of Wales" or the "Dauphin" comes
from this problem.
Not immediately after Hastings and not as a result of Hastings.
It was part of the process that began with Hastings. The
history of it is interesting.

But my point was different: there is a fascinating story to
be told about Hastings. There's no need to invent history
in order to make the story interesting.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-25 00:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Pogue Gans still doesn't understand that when we are dealing with
Mass-Market Popular Films, History needs to be compressed, enriched and
manipulated -- characters need to be combined -- time needs to be
manipulated -- language must be simplified -- modern audiences must be
considered as to criteria of inclusiveness and manners...

Everything must MOVE, plot points cannot be too complex to be understood
by modern mass audiences, Star Power must be deployed to Best Advantage
and the whole thing must fit into 120 minutes, plus or minus a few
minutes -- or the theater owners will be up in arms -- and universal
bladders will revolt as well.

Only VERY Great Expensive Epics can be three plus hours long -- and they
are often too risky for financial backers -- currently out of favor with
audiences -- frequently fail at the box office -- and sometimes require
intermissions. In summary, they seem to be artistic products of a prior
Golden Cinematic Age -- when audiences were smarter -- and more patient.

Further:

More-highly-educated patrons, the ones he pretends to identify with,
often don't even go to the movies nowadays.

They have their own Home Theatre Systems and watch films of their choice
on DVD -- in the comfort and pleasures of their own homes.

He's just VERY naïve about all this -- and stubbornly obtuse...

Because he's been educated on it many times before.

But Remains Abysmally Ignorant...

Is this funny lad Gans.

But Vastly Entertaining...

As The Fuzzy-Headed Academic...

Who Just Doesn't Get It.

How Sweet It Is!

And it just keeps getting better...

As Gans's mental powers continue to decline.

Enjoy!
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Post by Paul J Gans
But my point was different: there is a fascinating story to
be told about Hastings. There's no need to invent history
in order to make the story interesting.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
James Hogg
2008-12-25 14:00:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:50:03 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Pogue Gans still doesn't understand that when we are dealing with
Mass-Market Popular Films, History needs to be compressed, enriched and
manipulated -- characters need to be combined -- time needs to be
manipulated -- language must be simplified -- modern audiences must be
considered as to criteria of inclusiveness and manners...
Hines, you and Eric Landers are kindred spirits.

When can we expect to see the filmed version of your screenplay
about George II's wife, "Queen Charlotte"?

James
a***@hotmail.com
2008-12-25 18:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/fil...
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Almost 1,000 years after King Harold took an arrow in the
eye, one of the most dramatic turning points in English history
is finally to receive the cinema treatment.
Three feature films, with big-name backers and creative teams,
are preparing to refight the battle of Hastings.
They all plan to show the clash between Harold and William
as the falling out of two comrades, using the trusted cinema
combination of violence and contrasting love lives.
Well, uh, no.
There is no particular evidence that Harold and William were
buddies.  It is true that they met and that William, as was
the custom of the time, showered gifts and honors on Harold.
Harold was, at that time, probably the leading man of the
kingdom, possibly including the king.
But buddies?  No.
Comparing to the historical 'jewels' like 'Gladiator' and 'Elizabeth',
this looks like a tiny problem. :-)
Not at all.  It covers the major historical event.  
Well, 'Elizabeth' is suppossedly about the major historical events and
this did not prevent its creators from being ...er... creative. BTW,
did you see '300'? (IMHO, "Meet the Spartans" much more accurate
historically).
Both Harold
and William wanted power, as much of it as they could handle.
How unusual. :-)
With the death of the English king, there was a power vacuum
that needed filling.  The result was awful for the English.
Why? Instead of an English-speaking (BTW, was it "English" or some
kind of German) hoodlum they got a (bad) French-speaking one and had
to learn an extra language (I understand that THIS may be awuful for
some English speakers :-)).
But think of all the future glory.....
Ever after, both the English and the French kings, as well as
kings elsewhere, took pains to ensure that there would never
be that sort of power vacuum again.
Yeah, sure. The War for the Spanish Succession, the War for the
Austrian Succession, etc. all the way to Franco-Prussian War (with the
numerous small-scale thingies like Mantuan War). As far as 'pain' is
involved, there was a lot of it. To think about it, even The 116
(IIRC) YW was due to the questionable arrangements...
 There measures didn't
always work,
To put it mildly. :-)
but they gave rise to all sorts of things that
have affected history.
Like re-mapping Spanish posessions, Silesia going to Prussia, etc.
Indeed, one of them is the notion of a Vice President in the US.
As you understand, this is NOT applicable to the monarchies and to
anything that took place before late XVIII (aka, totally irrelevant
example).
Now now Alex.  People began creating co-kings and heir apparents,
neither of which existed in any numbers before Hastings.
I don't think that this is true.
 The
French monarchy took the lead in this, but the English weren't
far behind.
Remember Henry I making his nobles swear to support his
daughter as Queen regnant?
Are you saying that the heirs never had been defined during king's
lifetime before Hastings?
Certainly not in England and I don't believe so in France
either.  
Hugh Capet arranged for election and coronation of his son, Robert, as
co-king. Robert did the same with his son. You can check the dates.
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by a***@hotmail.com
The notion of the "Prince of Wales" or the "Dauphin" comes
from this problem.
Not immediately after Hastings and not as a result of Hastings.
It was part of the process that began with Hastings.  The
history of it is interesting.
The history is, indeed, interesting but it did not start with
Hastings.
Post by Paul J Gans
But my point was different:  there is a fascinating story to
be told about Hastings.  There's no need to invent history
in order to make the story interesting.  
Agreed.

It is even more interesting how Harald of Norway, with his huge
military experience, managed to get himself totally surprised by the
Saxons.
William Black
2008-12-25 18:21:23 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a10f59fd-c450-4955-9c0a-***@e6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

It is even more interesting how Harald of Norway, with his huge
military experience, managed to get himself totally surprised by the
Saxons.

-----------------------

That surprise is one that rattles down the years.

First of all you have to ask why Harald hadn't moved on. Stamford Bridge
isn't far from Fulford and it had happened some days previously.

What was Harald hanging about for?

The tactical big shock was Harold's ability to move 180 miles is four days.

How he did it is still something of a mystery. People have suggested that
only those of the Brave Fyrd who were horsed and the Huscarls deployed north
with the local Fyrd being called out to serve as light infantry.
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
a***@hotmail.com
2008-12-25 23:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
It is even more interesting how Harald of Norway, with his huge
military experience, managed to get himself totally surprised by the
Saxons.
-----------------------
That surprise is one that rattles down the years.
First of all you have to ask why Harald hadn't moved on.  Stamford Bridge
isn't far from Fulford and it had happened some days previously.
And why would he and his troops left their armour somewhere behind and
could not get to it immediately after they saw the coming Saxons?
Post by a***@hotmail.com
What was Harald hanging about for?
Perhaps tried to figure out what the Hell he is doing there? :-)
Post by a***@hotmail.com
The tactical big shock was Harold's ability to move 180 miles is four days.
How he did it is still something of a mystery.  People have suggested that
only those of the Brave Fyrd who were horsed and the Huscarls deployed north
with the local Fyrd being called out to serve as light infantry.
Even then, speed is amazing (and so is, probably, horses' stamina) and
the local Fyrd got mobilized in what? A day or two?
Paul J Gans
2008-12-26 01:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by a***@hotmail.com
It is even more interesting how Harald of Norway, with his huge
military experience, managed to get himself totally surprised by the
Saxons.
-----------------------
That surprise is one that rattles down the years.
First of all you have to ask why Harald hadn't moved on.  Stamford Bridge
isn't far from Fulford and it had happened some days previously.
And why would he and his troops left their armour somewhere behind and
could not get to it immediately after they saw the coming Saxons?
The mystery of the missing armor can be explained by Harald never
thinking that a serious armed force was already coming at him.

Hindsight is wonderful.
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by a***@hotmail.com
What was Harald hanging about for?
Perhaps tried to figure out what the Hell he is doing there? :-)
He knew. He'd been around. And he *KNEW* that Harold could
not raise an army in London and move it north in four day.
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by a***@hotmail.com
The tactical big shock was Harold's ability to move 180 miles is four days.
How he did it is still something of a mystery.  People have suggested that
only those of the Brave Fyrd who were horsed and the Huscarls deployed north
with the local Fyrd being called out to serve as light infantry.
Even then, speed is amazing (and so is, probably, horses' stamina) and
the local Fyrd got mobilized in what? A day or two?
Just like Hastings.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
2008-12-26 01:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
It is even more interesting how Harald of Norway, with his huge
military experience, managed to get himself totally surprised by the
Saxons.
-----------------------
That surprise is one that rattles down the years.
First of all you have to ask why Harald hadn't moved on. Stamford Bridge
isn't far from Fulford and it had happened some days previously.
What was Harald hanging about for?
The tactical big shock was Harold's ability to move 180 miles is four days.
How he did it is still something of a mystery. People have suggested that
only those of the Brave Fyrd who were horsed and the Huscarls deployed north
with the local Fyrd being called out to serve as light infantry.
I subscribe to that theory. I think that most all of the men
who fought with Harold up north came from northern counties.

And I think that Harald was more beaten up than we think, even
though he'd won the original battle. And he may have been
waiting for English reinforecements that Tostig promised him.
But we'll never know for sure.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
2008-12-26 01:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
It is even more interesting how Harald of Norway, with his huge
military experience, managed to get himself totally surprised by the
Saxons.
I think this was due to Harold's habit of moving very fast so
as to strike before his enemies were ready. He'd used it to
very good effect in Wales. And it seems that Harald did not
expect the news of his landing and victory to get to London
quickly enough so that Harold could raise an army quickly and
move north very fast.

What Harold seems to have done was send out fast riders to
the northern counties along his route north asking the men
of those counties to meet him at specified spots along the
way.

He then road north with his husekarls and what few mounted
men he could find. The assembled army, as you say, then
surprised Harald very badly.

When in the North Harold heard of William's landing and tried
the same trick in reverse. Again he road south with a picked
and mounted cadre with messages going to the men of the south,
particulary Kent, to meet him at a specified spot near Hastings.
As soon as Harold got there he took what men had arrived and
moved to fight William.

William, evidently through spies, got wind of the call-up and
was ready to meet Harold. The rest is history.

Had Harold moved a bit more slowly and been a bit more tactical
in his thinking, he'd have had a much larger army and faced a
starving William. But that's a large what if.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-26 02:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Spies are always useful -- and often unheralded...

For obvious reasons.

American "Liberals", the "Anti-War Crowd", want to disarm and neuter our
spies...

So, we may well wind up like Harold.

That's certainly what happened on 9/11.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Post by Paul J Gans
William, evidently through spies, got wind of the call-up and
was ready to meet Harold. The rest is history.
Peter Jason
2008-12-26 21:59:25 UTC
Permalink
The *gross* inefficiency of your spies was demonstrated in
the Iraq war fiasco. Good espionage would have prevented
this by revealing the *true* situation in 2003.

Good espionage could have revealed the movements & location
of Saddam and other key figures so allowing "termination
with extreme prejudice".

Good espionage from 1930 - 1970 in Britain was shown by the
Philby/Blunt/Burgess cabal which fed the Russians info from
WWII, and all the way thru the Cold War.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Spies are always useful -- and often unheralded...
For obvious reasons.
American "Liberals", the "Anti-War Crowd", want to disarm
and neuter our
spies...
So, we may well wind up like Harold.
That's certainly what happened on 9/11.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Post by Paul J Gans
William, evidently through spies, got wind of the call-up
and
was ready to meet Harold. The rest is history.
John Briggs
2008-12-29 16:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Jason
The *gross* inefficiency of your spies was demonstrated in
the Iraq war fiasco. Good espionage would have prevented
this by revealing the *true* situation in 2003.
That would have ruined everyting.
Post by Peter Jason
Good espionage could have revealed the movements &
location of Saddam and other key figures so allowing
"termination with extreme prejudice".
It doesn't work like that - but that wasn't the object of the exercise.
Post by Peter Jason
Good espionage from 1930 - 1970 in Britain was shown by
the Philby/Blunt/Burgess cabal which fed the Russians
info from WWII, and all the way thru the Cold War.
And what use was any of that "info"?
--
John Briggs
James Hogg
2008-12-29 16:59:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:27:03 -0000, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by Peter Jason
Good espionage from 1930 - 1970 in Britain was shown by
the Philby/Blunt/Burgess cabal which fed the Russians
info from WWII, and all the way thru the Cold War.
And what use was any of that "info"?
If I shot you I would have to tell you...

James
Fred J. McCall
2008-12-29 19:31:17 UTC
Permalink
"John Briggs" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

:Peter Jason wrote:
:> The *gross* inefficiency of your spies was demonstrated in
:> the Iraq war fiasco. Good espionage would have prevented
:> this by revealing the *true* situation in 2003.
:
:That would have ruined everyting.
:

Not to mention that it is unlikely to have told us anything. There is
some question as to whether ANYONE really knew the total status of
Iraq's WMD efforts.

Peter seems to be equating "good espionage" with 'omniscience'. It
doesn't work like that.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-25 01:19:48 UTC
Permalink
BTW, IIRC, William's oldest son did not became a heir to the English
throne.
You are quite wrong. William, in his will, left England to
his *middle son*, William Rufus. His older son was granted
Normandy.
Gans simply demonstrates he can't READ there... Cognitive skills
attriting...

Read what Alex wrote above...
That was followed by a difficult period, culminating finally
in the ascent to the throne of Edward I who named his fourth
son Prince of Wales, the first Englishman (if I may use that
term) to hold the title.
Quite deceptive and manipulative of Gans...

Edward may have been the fourth son born to Edward I but he was the
FIRST to SURVIVE past the AGE of 10 YEARS. So, of course he became the
heir and Prince of Wales.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-25 22:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Worth more explication here.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
'The Times of Trouble' had been all about finding the right heir
to the Russian throne.
erilar
2008-12-22 15:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
There is no particular evidence that Harold and William were
buddies. It is true that they met and that William, as was
the custom of the time, showered gifts and honors on Harold.
Harold was, at that time, probably the leading man of the
kingdom, possibly including the king.
But buddies? No.
How often does a movie get history right? 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo 
a***@hotmail.com
2008-12-22 18:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
There is no particular evidence that Harold and William were
buddies.  It is true that they met and that William, as was
the custom of the time, showered gifts and honors on Harold.
Harold was, at that time, probably the leading man of the
kingdom, possibly including the king.
But buddies?  No.
How often does a movie get history right?   8-)
With the history not having the facts, how can you distinguish right
from wrong? Except of course, that the right tends to be less
entertaining. :-)

[BTW, I recently suffered through the 32 out of 33 series of the movie
done if not 'right' then at least 'by the book'. Trust me, you don't
want to see the result: the only reason why I kept watching was
because it was about Ghengis.]
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 02:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by erilar
Post by Paul J Gans
There is no particular evidence that Harold and William were
buddies. It is true that they met and that William, as was
the custom of the time, showered gifts and honors on Harold.
Harold was, at that time, probably the leading man of the
kingdom, possibly including the king.
But buddies? No.
How often does a movie get history right? 8-)
Not often. And I'm only talking about major points.

But here, the real reasons for the war are just as
good plot drivers, if not better.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-22 06:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
Is Howarth's "spin" on 1066 accurate? At least William I The
Conqueror King of England, my ancestor, won...
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
-------------------------------------------------------

Indeed...

But many of us here are descended from BOTH Harold and William....

It's no big thing.

One might, with perfect justification, refer to it as a prime example of
the Principle of Historical Symmetry.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

"~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne"
Post by ~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
We'll be fortunate if William wins..............
Review of 1066: The Year of the Conquest
http://www.amazon.com/1066-Conquest-David-Armine-Howarth/dp/1556905793
In this short but well written narrative, Howarth paints moving
portraits of King Edward the Confessor, Harold of England, William of
Normandy, Earl Tostig, King Harald Hardrada, the people of England and
other players in the Norman conquest. Howarth does not conceal his
views, admitting at the outset that he "would have liked King Harold,
heartily disliked King Edward the Confessor, felt sorry for Earl
Tostig and terrified of Duke William, and found nothing whatever to
say to King Harald Hardrada of Norway." This is history with a bit of
passion, which makes it all the more enjoyable for the reader.
"1066" will also make you appreciate how hard it is to know anything
about a time like the Middle Ages, when very few people could read and
write and those who could were invariably working for whoever won the
latest battle. It will also give a sense of how contingent history is,
of how the world might have become a very different place if a few
events had happened in a different order. As it was, William the
Conqueror arrived at exactly the right time, while King Harold was at
the other end of England crushing King Harald Hardrada at the Battle
of Stamford Bridge. What would have happened if William's fleet had
been destroyed in a storm, or if he had arrived in England in the
summer of 1066, when King Harold was ready and able to meet him? We'll
never know--King Harold and his army arrived at Hastings exhausted and
depleted, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Howarth approaches 1066 as if it were the stuff of a novel, and he has
been criticized for doing so. I don't know whether Howarth is
perfectly accurate, or whether his "spin" on the story is correct--but
the same can be said of the most boring and heavily footnoted history
that anyone cares to name. For those who enjoy history but also prize
elegant and engaging storytelling, this book is a joy to read.
Is Howarth's "spin" on 1066 accurate? At least William I The
Conqueror King of England, my ancestor, won...
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
2008-12-22 08:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond O'Hara
Is Howarth's "spin" on 1066 accurate?  At least William I The
Conqueror King of England, my ancestor, won...
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
-------------------------------------------------------
Indeed...
But many of us here are descended from BOTH Harold and William....
It's no big thing.
One might, with perfect justification, refer to it as a prime example of
the Principle of Historical Symmetry.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
We'll be fortunate if William wins..............
Review of 1066: The Year of the Conquest
http://www.amazon.com/1066-Conquest-David-Armine-Howarth/dp/1556905793
In this short but well written narrative, Howarth paints moving
portraits of King Edward the Confessor, Harold of England, William of
Normandy, Earl Tostig, King Harald Hardrada, the people of England and
other players in the Norman conquest. Howarth does not conceal his
views, admitting at the outset that he "would have liked King Harold,
heartily disliked King Edward the Confessor, felt sorry for Earl
Tostig and terrified of Duke William, and found nothing whatever to
say to King Harald Hardrada of Norway." This is history with a bit of
passion, which makes it all the more enjoyable for the reader.
"1066" will also make you appreciate how hard it is to know anything
about a time like the Middle Ages, when very few people could read and
write and those who could were invariably working for whoever won the
latest battle. It will also give a sense of how contingent history is,
of how the world might have become a very different place if a few
events had happened in a different order. As it was, William the
Conqueror arrived at exactly the right time, while King Harold was at
the other end of England crushing King Harald Hardrada at the Battle
of Stamford Bridge. What would have happened if William's fleet had
been destroyed in a storm, or if he had arrived in England in the
summer of 1066, when King Harold was ready and able to meet him? We'll
never know--King Harold and his army arrived at Hastings exhausted and
depleted, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Howarth approaches 1066 as if it were the stuff of a novel, and he has
been criticized for doing so. I don't know whether Howarth is
perfectly accurate, or whether his "spin" on the story is correct--but
the same can be said of the most boring and heavily footnoted history
that anyone cares to name. For those who enjoy history but also prize
elegant and engaging storytelling, this book is a joy to read.
Is Howarth's "spin" on 1066 accurate?  At least William I The
Conqueror King of England, my ancestor, won...
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbingAncestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,

That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also imprinted in my brain
as well. Memory in fact summons nearly every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick Flick. And I
certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a combat version for
the male youngbloods who have converted the industry into glorified
cartoon fest as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.

There was not one single battle scene in "Lion"... just one
unforgettable
close quarter combat between two knights over a tiny box containing
Eleanor of Aquitaine's lettres patent. Gawd what a grand drama it
was !! Will I remember "Gladiator" so vividly? Don't think so.

Actually my concern in "1066" is costuming. What the hell did they
wear in the 11th century? Did not animal skins predominate the male
wardrobe until Eleanor of Aquitaine outlawed them in her domaine ?
I want to see the version that uses the historically correct forms of
dress both in society and in battle. This is my priority over the
"dialogue versus combat" issue.

Holiday cheers, David H not Hines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob
2008-12-22 16:22:55 UTC
Permalink
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also imprinted in my brain
as well.  Memory in fact summons nearly every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick Flick.  And I
certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a combat version for
the male youngbloods who have converted the industry into glorified
cartoon fest as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done (the 3d animation
version was scripted by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary) when it comes to
some accurate depictions of early medieval period and people of the
Dark Age Europe.
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
There was not one single battle scene in "Lion"... just one
unforgettable
close quarter combat between two knights over a tiny box containing
Eleanor of Aquitaine's lettres patent. Gawd what a grand drama it
was !!  Will I remember "Gladiator" so vividly?  Don't think so.
The last "Lion in Winter", which starred Patrick Stewart and Glenn
Close, was marvelous, not just from the performances of the actors,
but for the overall depiction of the late 12th century France. I loved
the scene in which Richard rode his horse into his father's castle and
rode up the stairs to his room still on his horse!
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Actually my concern in "1066" is costuming.  What the hell did they
wear in the 11th century?  Did not animal skins predominate the male
wardrobe until Eleanor of Aquitaine outlawed them in her domaine ?
I want to see the version that uses the historically correct forms of
dress both in society and in battle.  This is my priority over the
"dialogue versus combat" issue.
Holiday cheers, David H not Hines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would suggest two movies from the late 1960s: Alfred the Great and
The Tragedy of Macbeth. On the other hand, Hollywood have an
incredible pool of very talented costume-designers to draw from and
I'm certain they are well-versed in the history of medieval fashion.
The only thing that could stand in the way of having an accurate
depiction of medieval costuming is the creativity of a the film
director (who would not try to fashion the film a la Andy Warhol).
John Briggs
2008-12-22 17:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also imprinted
in my brain as well. Memory in fact summons nearly
every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick
Flick. And I certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a
combat version for the male youngbloods who have
converted the industry into glorified cartoon fest as
we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done (the
3d animation version was scripted by Neil Gaiman and
Roger Avary) when it comes to some accurate depictions of
early medieval period and people of the Dark Age Europe.
A pity they butchered the story, then...
--
John Briggs
Rob
2008-12-22 21:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also imprinted
in my brain as well. Memory in fact summons nearly
every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick
Flick. And I certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a
combat version for the male youngbloods who have
converted the industry into glorified cartoon fest as
we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done (the
3d animation version was scripted by Neil Gaiman and
Roger Avary) when it comes to some accurate depictions of
early medieval period and people of the Dark Age Europe.
A pity they butchered the story, then...
--
John Briggs
How so?
John Briggs
2008-12-22 21:27:46 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 22, 12:01 pm, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also
imprinted in my brain as well. Memory in fact
summons nearly every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick
Flick. And I certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a
combat version for the male youngbloods who have
converted the industry into glorified cartoon fest
as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done
(the 3d animation version was scripted by Neil Gaiman
and Roger Avary) when it comes to some accurate
depictions of early medieval period and people of the
Dark Age Europe.
A pity they butchered the story, then...
How so?
It's difficult to summarise without leaving out important aspects, but here
goes:

Making Grendel's mother the seducer of Hrothgar, and him the father of
Grendel;
Doing away with the battle between Grendel's mother and Beowulf, which ends
with her death;
Making Beowulf the father of the dragon;
Making Beowulf king of Heorot and changing Beowulf's funeral.

They got themselves into this mess by working from the screenplays of
previous adaptations and picking ideas up from there, rather than from the
original poem...
--
John Briggs
William Black
2008-12-22 21:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Doing away with the battle between Grendel's mother and Beowulf, which
ends with her death;
Not having seen it, how on earth did they manage that?
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Rob
2008-12-22 22:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
On Dec 22, 12:01 pm, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also
imprinted in my brain as well. Memory in fact
summons nearly every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick
Flick. And I certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a
combat version for the male youngbloods who have
converted the industry into glorified cartoon fest
as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done
(the 3d animation version was scripted by Neil Gaiman
and Roger Avary) when it comes to some accurate
depictions of early medieval period and people of the
Dark Age Europe.
A pity they butchered the story, then...
How so?
It's difficult to summarise without leaving out important aspects, but here
Making Grendel's mother the seducer of Hrothgar, and him the father of
Grendel;
Doing away with the battle between Grendel's mother and Beowulf, which ends
with her death;
Making Beowulf the father of the dragon;
Making Beowulf king of Heorot and changing Beowulf's funeral.
They got themselves into this mess by working from the screenplays of
previous adaptations and picking ideas up from there, rather than from the
original poem...
--
John Briggs
That's a matter of interpretations on Gaiman-Avary's part, after they
spent years working and researching on the script.

Read the interview with Gaiman and Avary on why they went into that
direction: http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_13367.html
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 02:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by John Briggs
On Dec 22, 12:01 pm, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also
imprinted in my brain as well. Memory in fact
summons nearly every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick
Flick. And I certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a
combat version for the male youngbloods who have
converted the industry into glorified cartoon fest
as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done
(the 3d animation version was scripted by Neil Gaiman
and Roger Avary) when it comes to some accurate
depictions of early medieval period and people of the
Dark Age Europe.
A pity they butchered the story, then...
How so?
It's difficult to summarise without leaving out important aspects, but here
Making Grendel's mother the seducer of Hrothgar, and him the father of
Grendel;
Doing away with the battle between Grendel's mother and Beowulf, which ends
with her death;
Making Beowulf the father of the dragon;
Making Beowulf king of Heorot and changing Beowulf's funeral.
They got themselves into this mess by working from the screenplays of
previous adaptations and picking ideas up from there, rather than from the
original poem...
--
John Briggs
That's a matter of interpretations on Gaiman-Avary's part, after they
spent years working and researching on the script.
Read the interview with Gaiman and Avary on why they went into that
direction: http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_13367.html
Why? We have the original story. It doesn't admit of
too much interpretation.

What they did was rewrite the story. That's fine. But they
should have given it a new name such as "Gumbya" or the like.
Then nobody would have been confused.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Rob
2008-12-24 21:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by John Briggs
On Dec 22, 12:01 pm, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also
imprinted in my brain as well. Memory in fact
summons nearly every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick
Flick. And I certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a
combat version for the male youngbloods who have
converted the industry into glorified cartoon fest
as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done
(the 3d animation version was scripted by Neil Gaiman
and Roger Avary) when it comes to some accurate
depictions of early medieval period and people of the
Dark Age Europe.
A pity they butchered the story, then...
How so?
It's difficult to summarise without leaving out important aspects, but here
Making Grendel's mother the seducer of Hrothgar, and him the father of
Grendel;
Doing away with the battle between Grendel's mother and Beowulf, which ends
with her death;
Making Beowulf the father of the dragon;
Making Beowulf king of Heorot and changing Beowulf's funeral.
They got themselves into this mess by working from the screenplays of
previous adaptations and picking ideas up from there, rather than from the
original poem...
--
John Briggs
That's a matter of interpretations on Gaiman-Avary's part, after they
spent years working and researching on the script.
Read the interview with Gaiman and Avary on why they went into that
direction:http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_13367.html
Why?  We have the original story.  It doesn't admit of
too much interpretation.
What they did was rewrite the story.  That's fine.  But they
should have given it a new name such as "Gumbya" or the like.
Then nobody would have been confused.
--
   --- Paul J. Gans
Probably so. Maybe drinking too many pints of beer helped them place
Beowulf from a certain perspective?
Paul J Gans
2008-12-25 00:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
Post by John Briggs
On Dec 22, 12:01 pm, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also
imprinted in my brain as well. Memory in fact
summons nearly every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick
Flick. And I certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a
combat version for the male youngbloods who have
converted the industry into glorified cartoon fest
as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done
(the 3d animation version was scripted by Neil Gaiman
and Roger Avary) when it comes to some accurate
depictions of early medieval period and people of the
Dark Age Europe.
A pity they butchered the story, then...
How so?
It's difficult to summarise without leaving out important aspects, but here
Making Grendel's mother the seducer of Hrothgar, and him the father of
Grendel;
Doing away with the battle between Grendel's mother and Beowulf, which ends
with her death;
Making Beowulf the father of the dragon;
Making Beowulf king of Heorot and changing Beowulf's funeral.
They got themselves into this mess by working from the screenplays of
previous adaptations and picking ideas up from there, rather than from the
original poem...
--
John Briggs
That's a matter of interpretations on Gaiman-Avary's part, after they
spent years working and researching on the script.
Read the interview with Gaiman and Avary on why they went into that
direction:http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_13367.html
Why?  We have the original story.  It doesn't admit of
too much interpretation.
What they did was rewrite the story.  That's fine.  But they
should have given it a new name such as "Gumbya" or the like.
Then nobody would have been confused.
--
   --- Paul J. Gans
Probably so. Maybe drinking too many pints of beer helped them place
Beowulf from a certain perspective?
That's in Beowulf too. The drinking at the Great Hall is
very well portrayed, as is the condition of the men and
the Hall afterwards.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 02:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
On Dec 22, 12:01 pm, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also
imprinted in my brain as well. Memory in fact
summons nearly every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick
Flick. And I certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a
combat version for the male youngbloods who have
converted the industry into glorified cartoon fest
as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done
(the 3d animation version was scripted by Neil Gaiman
and Roger Avary) when it comes to some accurate
depictions of early medieval period and people of the
Dark Age Europe.
A pity they butchered the story, then...
How so?
It's difficult to summarise without leaving out important aspects, but here
Making Grendel's mother the seducer of Hrothgar, and him the father of
Grendel;
Doing away with the battle between Grendel's mother and Beowulf, which ends
with her death;
Making Beowulf the father of the dragon;
Making Beowulf king of Heorot and changing Beowulf's funeral.
They got themselves into this mess by working from the screenplays of
previous adaptations and picking ideas up from there, rather than from the
original poem...
Original poem? You mean that somebody actually wrote a poem
about this stuff? We can't film poetry. Nobody wants to see
poetry.

We'll make it a story about this drifter who comes upon a
town in the old west that has a serial killer stalking it.
This old guy, he's the sheriff and is drunk all the time,
hires the drifter to get rid of the killer.

Ok, now get this -- the drifter rides out into the desert
looking for the killer and he runs into this UFO that contains
a misunderstood alien who needs a friend. He didn't intend
to kill anybody, he didn't know they were that fragile.

The two become best buddies and live happily ever after.

It would be a neat Christmas movie!
--
--- Paul J. Gans
James Beck
2008-12-23 04:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by John Briggs
On Dec 22, 12:01 pm, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also
imprinted in my brain as well. Memory in fact
summons nearly every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick
Flick. And I certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a
combat version for the male youngbloods who have
converted the industry into glorified cartoon fest
as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done
(the 3d animation version was scripted by Neil Gaiman
and Roger Avary) when it comes to some accurate
depictions of early medieval period and people of the
Dark Age Europe.
A pity they butchered the story, then...
How so?
It's difficult to summarise without leaving out important aspects, but here
Making Grendel's mother the seducer of Hrothgar, and him the father of
Grendel;
Doing away with the battle between Grendel's mother and Beowulf, which ends
with her death;
Making Beowulf the father of the dragon;
Making Beowulf king of Heorot and changing Beowulf's funeral.
They got themselves into this mess by working from the screenplays of
previous adaptations and picking ideas up from there, rather than from the
original poem...
Original poem? You mean that somebody actually wrote a poem
about this stuff? We can't film poetry. Nobody wants to see
poetry.
We'll make it a story about this drifter who comes upon a
town in the old west that has a serial killer stalking it.
This old guy, he's the sheriff and is drunk all the time,
hires the drifter to get rid of the killer.
Ok, now get this -- the drifter rides out into the desert
looking for the killer and he runs into this UFO that contains
a misunderstood alien who needs a friend. He didn't intend
to kill anybody, he didn't know they were that fragile.
The two become best buddies and live happily ever after.
It would be a neat Christmas movie!
You just reminded me of Harlan Ellison again... Are you sure you're
not related?
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 17:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Beck
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by John Briggs
On Dec 22, 12:01 pm, "John Briggs"
Post by John Briggs
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also
imprinted in my brain as well. Memory in fact
summons nearly every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick
Flick. And I certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a
combat version for the male youngbloods who have
converted the industry into glorified cartoon fest
as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done
(the 3d animation version was scripted by Neil Gaiman
and Roger Avary) when it comes to some accurate
depictions of early medieval period and people of the
Dark Age Europe.
A pity they butchered the story, then...
How so?
It's difficult to summarise without leaving out important aspects, but here
Making Grendel's mother the seducer of Hrothgar, and him the father of
Grendel;
Doing away with the battle between Grendel's mother and Beowulf, which ends
with her death;
Making Beowulf the father of the dragon;
Making Beowulf king of Heorot and changing Beowulf's funeral.
They got themselves into this mess by working from the screenplays of
previous adaptations and picking ideas up from there, rather than from the
original poem...
Original poem? You mean that somebody actually wrote a poem
about this stuff? We can't film poetry. Nobody wants to see
poetry.
We'll make it a story about this drifter who comes upon a
town in the old west that has a serial killer stalking it.
This old guy, he's the sheriff and is drunk all the time,
hires the drifter to get rid of the killer.
Ok, now get this -- the drifter rides out into the desert
looking for the killer and he runs into this UFO that contains
a misunderstood alien who needs a friend. He didn't intend
to kill anybody, he didn't know they were that fragile.
The two become best buddies and live happily ever after.
It would be a neat Christmas movie!
You just reminded me of Harlan Ellison again... Are you sure you're
not related?
No, but I believe we were at Ohio State at the same time...
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Rob
2008-12-24 21:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by James Beck
Post by Paul J Gans
It would be a neat Christmas movie!
You just reminded me of Harlan Ellison again... Are you sure you're
not related?
No, but I believe we were at Ohio State at the same time...
--
   --- Paul J. Gans
No shit? No way. :)
Paul J Gans
2008-12-25 00:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by James Beck
Post by Paul J Gans
It would be a neat Christmas movie!
You just reminded me of Harlan Ellison again... Are you sure you're
not related?
No, but I believe we were at Ohio State at the same time...
--
   --- Paul J. Gans
No shit? No way. :)
Way.

And why not?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 02:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also imprinted
in my brain as well. Memory in fact summons nearly
every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick
Flick. And I certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a
combat version for the male youngbloods who have
converted the industry into glorified cartoon fest as
we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done (the
3d animation version was scripted by Neil Gaiman and
Roger Avary) when it comes to some accurate depictions of
early medieval period and people of the Dark Age Europe.
A pity they butchered the story, then...
Well, everybody knows better than the creator of a story.
Especially one that's been around for a couple of years
or more.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 02:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Peter,
That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also imprinted in my brain
as well.  Memory in fact summons nearly every scene 40 years from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick Flick.  And I
certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a combat version for
the male youngbloods who have converted the industry into glorified
cartoon fest as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.
I thought the last 2 Beowulf movies were nicely done (the 3d animation
version was scripted by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary) when it comes to
some accurate depictions of early medieval period and people of the
Dark Age Europe.
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
There was not one single battle scene in "Lion"... just one
unforgettable
close quarter combat between two knights over a tiny box containing
Eleanor of Aquitaine's lettres patent. Gawd what a grand drama it
was !!  Will I remember "Gladiator" so vividly?  Don't think so.
The last "Lion in Winter", which starred Patrick Stewart and Glenn
Close, was marvelous, not just from the performances of the actors,
but for the overall depiction of the late 12th century France. I loved
the scene in which Richard rode his horse into his father's castle and
rode up the stairs to his room still on his horse!
Hmm. You know, I've been reading the history of this period for
a large number of years and I've never of heard anything like
that happening.

In fact, castles were designed to make that very thing impossible.
But Hollywood is Hollywood.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Peter Jason
2008-12-23 00:30:53 UTC
Permalink
"***@Texasgulfcoast" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:c4c20653-3721-430c-8aea-***@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 22, 12:40 am, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by Raymond O'Hara
Is Howarth's "spin" on 1066 accurate? At least William I
The
Conqueror King of England, my ancestor, won...
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
-------------------------------------------------------
Indeed...
But many of us here are descended from BOTH Harold and
William....
It's no big thing.
One might, with perfect justification, refer to it as a
prime example of
the Principle of Historical Symmetry.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"~Bret, scion of Charle de
We'll be fortunate if William wins..............
Review of 1066: The Year of the Conquest
http://www.amazon.com/1066-Conquest-David-Armine-Howarth/dp/1556905793
In this short but well written narrative, Howarth paints
moving
portraits of King Edward the Confessor, Harold of
England, William of
Normandy, Earl Tostig, King Harald Hardrada, the people
of England and
other players in the Norman conquest. Howarth does not
conceal his
views, admitting at the outset that he "would have liked
King Harold,
heartily disliked King Edward the Confessor, felt sorry
for Earl
Tostig and terrified of Duke William, and found nothing
whatever to
say to King Harald Hardrada of Norway." This is history
with a bit of
passion, which makes it all the more enjoyable for the
reader.
"1066" will also make you appreciate how hard it is to
know anything
about a time like the Middle Ages, when very few people
could read and
write and those who could were invariably working for
whoever won the
latest battle. It will also give a sense of how
contingent history is,
of how the world might have become a very different
place if a few
events had happened in a different order. As it was,
William the
Conqueror arrived at exactly the right time, while King
Harold was at
the other end of England crushing King Harald Hardrada
at the Battle
of Stamford Bridge. What would have happened if
William's fleet had
been destroyed in a storm, or if he had arrived in
England in the
summer of 1066, when King Harold was ready and able to
meet him? We'll
never know--King Harold and his army arrived at Hastings
exhausted and
depleted, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Howarth approaches 1066 as if it were the stuff of a
novel, and he has
been criticized for doing so. I don't know whether
Howarth is
perfectly accurate, or whether his "spin" on the story
is correct--but
the same can be said of the most boring and heavily
footnoted history
that anyone cares to name. For those who enjoy history
but also prize
elegant and engaging storytelling, this book is a joy to
read.
Is Howarth's "spin" on 1066 accurate? At least William I
The
Conqueror King of England, my ancestor, won...
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbingAncestral Descendants
ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,

That would be "Lion in Winter" and it is also imprinted in
my brain
as well. Memory in fact summons nearly every scene 40 years
from
the first viewing. It is what they call now a Chick Flick.
And I
certainly hope
"1066" will have the chick version in addition to a combat
version for
the male youngbloods who have converted the industry into
glorified
cartoon fest as we have seen in the "Beowulf" travesty.

There was not one single battle scene in "Lion"... just one
unforgettable
close quarter combat between two knights over a tiny box
containing
Eleanor of Aquitaine's lettres patent. Gawd what a grand
drama it
was !! Will I remember "Gladiator" so vividly? Don't think
so.

Actually my concern in "1066" is costuming. What the hell
did they
wear in the 11th century? Did not animal skins predominate
the male
wardrobe until Eleanor of Aquitaine outlawed them in her
domaine ?
I want to see the version that uses the historically correct
forms of
dress both in society and in battle. This is my priority
over the
"dialogue versus combat" issue.

Holiday cheers, David H not Hines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, I liked the Beowulf animated version.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/
The director of these animations can do far more with the
characters than is possible with live actors. Indeed the
characters *look* like the Hollywood stars. There are no
limitations on the animals either; imagine, it would be
possible to HERD CATS!

This wonderful technology is advancing rapidly, and I drool
to expect a multi-movie version of the War of The Roses of
the Lord of the Rings type, in which all the characters are
shown in their medieval best and the battles in all their
gory blood-soaked magnificence! The great advantage too of
the animation technology is that soapy scenes look
ridiculous compared to the action ones, like in the Lord of
the Rings where the boring, slow talk-fests and
navel-gazings between the hobbits and their mentors really
got in the way of the action scenes.


May we all get the Xmas we deserve.
George T SLC
2008-12-26 03:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@Texasgulfcoast
Actually my concern in "1066" is costuming.  What the hell did they
wear in the 11th century?  Did not animal skins predominate the male
wardrobe until Eleanor of Aquitaine outlawed them in her domaine ?
I want to see the version that uses the historically correct forms of
dress both in society and in battle.  This is my priority over the
"dialogue versus combat" issue.
Holiday cheers, David H not Hines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One of my friends thinks I (and she, for that matter) have borderline
Asperger's, but I haven't usually had a problem detecting irony and
sarcasm. Since I find no markers for either in the above, let me ask
bluntly:

You ARE kidding, aren't you? Or if not, please cite one or more
references (better yet, cite one or more websites) on the outlawing.
Thank you!

P.S. The men's costumes in the Bayeux Tapestry don't strike me as
fur-heavy.
David Hepworth
2008-12-26 10:10:51 UTC
Permalink
It's been fun reading the posts about the upcoming film, but I'm
surprised that none of you has commented on the one that's already in
the marketplace!!

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0139739/

Released in English dub as William the Conqueror, the story picks up
with William's father and W's childhood, the various battles for
Normandy etc, thus giving a background to his personality and
companions. Concurrently it looks at the English problems and the
issues of who will rule and then leads to the battle.

I'm not selling my copy but notice Amazon American has a couple of
copies - it was only released on VHS
http://www.amazon.com/William-the-Conqueror/dp/B00004W0U8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=video&qid=1230286188&sr=1-1

David
Tron
2008-12-22 12:41:34 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Stasiak" <***@att.net> skrev i melding news:7e4759f4-6637-4ecc-a582-***@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article5375566.ece

Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
Post by Ed Stasiak
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Supposed to be hard to film in nautical twilight, though.

T
John Briggs
2008-12-22 16:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article5375566.ece
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
Post by Ed Stasiak
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Supposed to be hard to film in nautical twilight, though.
Civil twilight isn't too bad...
--
John Briggs
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 02:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article5375566.ece
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
Post by Ed Stasiak
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Supposed to be hard to film in nautical twilight, though.
Civil twilight isn't too bad...
Can twilight be civil in the midst of a battle?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
2008-12-23 02:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Richard Brooks
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article5375566.ece
Go for your bows: rivals race to film 1066
Post by Ed Stasiak
The historic turning point has been ignored by cinema -
Hastings until now
Supposed to be hard to film in nautical twilight, though.
Yes. The nautical twilight really lit up the thick
forest to the point of making it impossible for anyone
to hide from the eagle-eyed Normans on horseback. They
might just as well have stayed on the hilltop.

Stupid Saxons.

Who knew that Norman horses were equipped with echolocators?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Tron
2008-12-23 13:47:32 UTC
Permalink
....
Post by Paul J Gans
Yes. The nautical twilight really lit up the thick
forest to the point of making it impossible for anyone
to hide from the eagle-eyed Normans on horseback. They
might just as well have stayed on the hilltop.
Stupid Saxons.
Who knew that Norman horses were equipped with echolocators?
AFAIK they were warned, but not in the mood to listen to that kind of
domesday prophecies.

T
D. Spencer Hines
2008-12-25 23:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Mongolian tradition was (according to Gumilev) to leave the
'core' possessions to one of the junior sons and the new
acquisitions to the elder ones.
Alex

Presumably because they might prove harder to hold...
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Patterns like this existed in various societies but the rules had
been, sometimes, quite different. In pre-Mongolian Rus, the 'senior'
throne was going to the elder member of the extended family with the
other members moving to the new posessions depending on their
proximity toward the new Great Prince. Mongolian tradition was
(according to Gumilev) to leave the 'core' posessions to one of the
junior sons and the new acquisitions to the elder ones.
a***@hotmail.com
2008-12-25 23:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Mongolian tradition was (according to Gumilev) to leave the
'core' possessions to one of the junior sons and the new
acquisitions to the elder ones.
Alex
Presumably because they might prove harder to hold...
Quite possible. The junior son was, presumably, helping to maintain
the family's household. Of course, this is one of many
interpretations. Another is that Ghengis did not like his elder son,
Juchi (with G's wife being taken prisoner while she potentially could
be on the early stage of a pregnancy, there was a rumor that Juchi is
actually not his son). Later, the pattern became even less clear:
Juchi's elder son got Siberian Khanat while the Western conquest had
been conducted by J's younger son, Batu (lands which were obviously
more difficult to hold). I'm not sure that, whatever pattern there
was, it survived after G's sons.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...