New movie trailers
- Thread starter rejenorst
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Getting a closer look it actually looks worse. The usual incorrect armour. Weird the movie shows the Dauphin being in command; he died young, wasn't a martial prince, and wasn't at Agincourt. Shakespeare incorrectly put him at Agincourt but at least didn't suggest he was in command.
Seems like another passable entry into the "broodingly whispering in corners" genre. They had an opportunity to show an historical Henry V, which I think would be interesting, but passed. Oh well.
I saw the press conference and wondered why the chap playing Henry "Hotspur" Percy looked like a literal child. Then I remembered that Shakespeare had the two Henry's set up as around the same age (to enhance rivalry?) but even other movies didn't cast Hotspur that young. Hotspur was 39 at Shrewsbury. What, did the filmmakers think Hotspur was a 3-year-old commanding at Otterburn
?
Seems like another passable entry into the "broodingly whispering in corners" genre. They had an opportunity to show an historical Henry V, which I think would be interesting, but passed. Oh well.
I saw the press conference and wondered why the chap playing Henry "Hotspur" Percy looked like a literal child. Then I remembered that Shakespeare had the two Henry's set up as around the same age (to enhance rivalry?) but even other movies didn't cast Hotspur that young. Hotspur was 39 at Shrewsbury. What, did the filmmakers think Hotspur was a 3-year-old commanding at Otterburn
?
It is, but misses what sells Shakespeare: the beautiful language. Henry V is my favorite Shakespeare play but the plot couldn't be more simple. That's fine; what makes it great is the prose. This film takes all the things that Shakespeare invented about the story, sometimes doubling down on the errors, but skips what makes Shakespeare work. An historically accurate version has been done in fiction, from the French point of view, and while it isn't as beautiful as the Bard it has it's own unique appeal of being dramatic and truthful to the events.HoJu said:
Like I said before, I love Shakespeare's take, also would love to see an accurate version. This is deliberately neither.
It isn't biker gear but if filmmakers and their audiences keep setting the bar that low, you'll never see well-done armour.HoJu said:
Antonis said:
Well. She is a legendary queen for Turanian people (especially Kazakh and Azerbaijani people most of whom live in Iran). and daughter of Turan emperor Alp Er Tunga. Alp Er Tunga known as Afrasiab by Persians was killed by Persian Zaloğlu Rüstem after an ambush. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Rostam https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Afrasiab
The Turan people are the archenemies of Persian people.
So it can get nationalistic as it gets. She is sort of Braveheart for Turkic people.
Antonis said:Yes, but according to the article, Afrasiab's daughter was named Farangis and Tomyris and her family had Iranian roots and ties. What do you say to that, a theist?
Another Pan-Turkic conspiracy uncovered.
Anyway, the movie does look interesting.
The article is a wikipedia article and most of the European historians and linguists think that Scythians were not Turkic and Turks are not Turanian. The thing is Turks think that they are Turanian and Sythians are Turkic. Just to be clear.
Iranians probably would never make a movie about Scythians because then they would have to show women who are not submissive.
Antonis said:
Borat was randomly given Kazakh nationality. There actually is nothing related with Kazakhs in Borat.
And according to Herodotus the language Scytians spoke was not Iranian. Scythians speaking an Indo-European language is based on speculations which are also based on speculations which revolves around the idea that Turkic people are not from Earth. Turkic people strongly disagree that they are not from Earth.
Antonis said:
And if they were speaking a language resembling the language Persians and Europeans were speaking, it would have been mentioned. Sounds to me like Euro-nationalism.
We do not know that they were Indo-European speaking.
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/EthnicRootsEn.htm
Well, according to Herodotus(who isn't exactly a trustworthy source), pretty much everyone was Greek, descended from Greeks or sort-of Greek(the Ionians were Greek colonizers, at the beach of Minor Asia and he mentions that the Etruscans might be from there for one reason or the other). Nothing new here. Still, we are talking with modern tags about history of 3000 years ago. Medians and Persians were not 'Iranians', Romans were not 'Italians', Palmyrans were not 'Syrians' and such. There was no 'Euro-nationalism', because there was no unified 'Europe'. Those were just mythical being names and place names, if anything. Greeks couldn't care less for Gauls or Germanic people, those few that were aware of their existence, that is.
Herodotus was, indeed, very interested in pointing out how much better and superior were Greeks(especially Athenians, because they were his 'sponsors', despite himself being from Halicarnassus). But don't go talking to, say, a Lacedaimonian or Boeotian of the 5th century BC about a common Greek origin and common Greek national goals, if you value your life. Their nation was their city, and that was not so only in Greece. There was no concept of nation as it exists today.
Plus, I won't really trust a site named 'Turkic World' as a source for ethnic and national roots.
Herodotus was, indeed, very interested in pointing out how much better and superior were Greeks(especially Athenians, because they were his 'sponsors', despite himself being from Halicarnassus). But don't go talking to, say, a Lacedaimonian or Boeotian of the 5th century BC about a common Greek origin and common Greek national goals, if you value your life. Their nation was their city, and that was not so only in Greece. There was no concept of nation as it exists today.
Plus, I won't really trust a site named 'Turkic World' as a source for ethnic and national roots.
Antonis said:Well, according to Herodotus(who isn't exactly a trustworthy source), pretty much everyone was Greek, descended from Greeks or sort-of Greek(the Ionians were Greek colonizers, at the beach of Minor Asia and he mentions that the Etruscans might be from there for one reason or the other). Nothing new here. Still, we are talking with modern tags about history of 3000 years ago. Medians and Persians were not 'Iranians', Romans were not 'Italians', Palmyrans were not 'Syrians' and such. There was no 'Euro-nationalism', because there was no unified 'Europe'. Those were just mythical being names and place names, if anything. Greeks couldn't care less for Gauls or Germanic people, those few that were aware of their existence, that is.
Herodotus was, indeed, very interested in pointing out how much better and superior were Greeks(especially Athenians, because they were his 'sponsors', despite himself being from Halicarnassus). But don't go talking to, say, a Lacedaimonian or Boeotian of the 5th century BC about a common Greek origin and common Greek national goals, if you value your life. Their nation was their city, and that was not so only in Greece. There was no concept of nation as it exists today.
Plus, I won't really trust a site named 'Turkic World' as a source for ethnic and national roots.
It talks about how Scythians were identified as Indo-European speaking. It is based on a few words that can theoretically be traced back to PIE. But they can also be traced back to Proto-Turkic using the same way.
Bromden said:
and you still fail to see my point of view. The same evidence can point to Turkic speaking origin. Apart from that there is much more evidence linking them to Turks if we take continuity into account. There is no single Indo-Iranian speaking person on Earth that has any cultural similarity to Scythians. But many Turkic speaking nations that have clothing, food, art, theater, etc very similar to Scyhtians.
