“Outlaw King” Robert the Bruce movie.

A year or so ago I remember there being a load of ads kicking about asking for local boys and men (preferably bearded) to apply as an extra for an upcoming movie based around Robert the Bruce.

Just saw they finally released a trailer for it on Monday and it actually looks pretty decent. Chris Pine doing a pretty decent Scottish accent was a pleasant surprise as well.

Any thoughts?

It looks closer than Braveheart (1995), but that's a very low bar.  I've always thought of Chris Pine as a serviceable but not particularly good actor, and he looks decent here.  If people could deal with Mad Mel putting on the accent I imagine they can deal with Pine's attempt.

That said, they did a lazy job with details and of course it's filled to the brim with faux-medieval clichés.  Bare stonework castles inside and out (have they never heard of quicklime?), candles burning in the daylight despite the handy invention of windows.  Fire arrows; can't have a Medieval movie without fire arrows.  Florence Pugh as Elizabeth de Burgh wears her uncovered hair down in public (!).  What a floozy!

Some of the armour is way off.  Some of them have articulated pauldrons, Christ on a cracker.  No ailettes... anywhere.  The great helms are also very bare, no painting, no ornaments despite what sources suggest.  Also if you look around not a single white "X" on any of the Scot soldiers.  Lazy sons-of-*****es.

A lot of these problems could have been fixed well within budget.  They have license to make what they want, and I wish a director with that much leeway would try to make an accurate film about the Middle Ages and not the Hollywood Middle Ages.  Sigh.  Add it to the pile.

Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but the son-of-a-***** knows story structure!

It's hard to tell much from the trailer. I'd say it has the potential to be decent and the potential to suck. There wasn't enough of Chris Pine shown for me to tell if he'll be any good as Bruce. As for the setting, on one hand, it looks like it wants to appear realistic. The armor looks pretty good to me (for Hollywood, the armor looks very good), and there wasn't anything too jarringly out-of-place, like explosions. On the other hand, buildings on fire, fire arrows (like Barry said), the hero's family getting murdered by bad guys at the start of the movie... it could just turn into another Medieval Hollywood cliche-fest, couldn't it? I guess we'll have to wait and see. Hopefully we'll get a longer trailer at some point that will show more details.

Braveheart was good entertainment.

Doctor Dingleberry said:

Braveheart was a good, entertaining, accurate depiction of historical events.

Click to expand...

ftfy

Doctor Dingleberry said:

Braveheart was good entertainment.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Yeah people complain about historical accuracy but miss the fact that Braveheart represents the atmosphere well. Damn good mf story. Its probably close to what some Scottish peasant would have told you based off of rumors.

I'm not sure the whole "freedom" ideal was so well-defined as a burning desire among peasants. Especially not against the English instead of against the local Lord.

Besides, most films have inaccuracies. They can be historical or physical, judicial, medical etc.
You just notice the historical because you know about history.
Think of all the stupid things lawyers/judges have to endure watching crime stories, or physicists watchng sci-fi, or doctors watching hospital dramas or whatever...
(And I think in many cases the producers of a film actually know what would be historically more accurate, they just choose aesthetics and "drama" over it).

I was really disappointed to see the new trailer for Mary Queen of Scots. They pitch the two "queens" opposite each other as if they were friends who had a falling out.
To my knowledge they never met and were certainly not friends. The whole film is more like a drama loosely based on actual events.
Not to mention Mary has a Scottish accent even though she grew up in France. But it sounds good. In the end it's all about what looks and sounds good...

ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:

Yeah people complain about historical accuracy but miss the fact that Braveheart represents the atmosphere well.

Click to expand...

No it really, really doesn't.  I mean, it had a budget if that's what you mean but even the mise-en-scène is way off.

Hell, even the scenes in English court are dead wrong.

Adorno said:

Besides, most films have inaccuracies. They can be historical or physical, judicial, medical etc.
You just notice the historical because you know about history.
Think of all the stupid things lawyers/judges have to endure watching crime stories, or physicists watchng sci-fi, or doctors watching hospital dramas or whatever...

Click to expand...

This is true and I do notice these things because I know some of the history.  But if legal experts can point out inaccuracies in a legal drama (which they do), then pointing out costume designers are too goddamn lazy to sew a goddamn white "X" on a tunic is fair game.

Adorno said:

(And I think in many cases the producers of a film actually know what would be historically more accurate, they just choose aesthetics and "drama" over it).

Click to expand...

I don't think this is always true.  I'd be very surprised if Randall Wallace could pass a high school history exam.  He even admitted he didn't read much on the subject.

I listened to a video of a costume designer for a medieval show talk about his thought process on medieval clothes and pretty much everything he said was wrong.  It's weird but they do have an almost childish understanding of history.

Occasionally some do show historical knowledge and elected to cater to audience expectations (like the designers of Wolf Hall toning down the codpieces).  On the other hand there are some filmmakers who do put a lot of work into historical details so it absolutely can be done.

Harkon Haakonson said:

Doctor Dingleberry said:

Braveheart was a good, entertaining, accurate depiction of historical events.

Click to expand...

ftfy

Click to expand...

Now we're talking. This sounds like a movie for me - Braveheart: The Sequel.

I fell in love with Chris Pine ever since I saw him in Hell or High Water. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend you to check it out as Mackenzie is directing this movie too.

Barry you couldn't have made an entertaining historical epic about Scotland if you had 10x the budget okay. It represents the atmosphere well enough and saying it doesn't is objectively pedantic. Sure we won't understand what being a dirt poor serf in 13th century Britain was like, but at least we are getting an idea of the conflict.

ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:

Barry you couldn't have made an entertaining historical epic about Scotland if you had 10x the budget okay. It represents the atmosphere well enough and saying it doesn't is objectively pedantic. Sure we won't understand what being a dirt poor serf in 13th century Britain was like, but at least we are getting an idea of the conflict.

Click to expand...

i like memes

I sort of want them to make Braveheart or this, but where they actually speak Old Scots and Classical Gaelic.
Or any historical film where they speak the English of the time, for that matter.

ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:

Barry you couldn't have made an entertaining historical epic about Scotland if you had 10x the budget okay.

Click to expand...

Ah the old "you couldn't do better" cliché.  10x 70 million dollar budget?  Yes, give me 700 million dollars and I could damn well do that. 

ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:

It represents the atmosphere well enough and saying it doesn't is objectively pedantic.

Click to expand...

Or you just don't know much about it, which you obviously don't if you think it's "well enough".  It's not close, at all.  You also don't seem to understand what "objectivity" means.

Pedantic (but correct) is pointing out Edward Longshanks had ptosis which in Braveheart he clearly does not.  Pointing out that Scots are wearing clothes (in the wrong way no less) from centuries in the future while having customs and architecture that are centuries outdated, is not pedantic.  That's like Abraham Lincoln using a laptop, even though those two are closer in history than William Wallace was to kilts.  (It's so off that people dressed anything like are banned from participating in reenactments of the era.)

And look, enjoy whatever you want and I mean that.  I don't give a good goddamn.  But its historicity is beyond defending.  Just makes you sound historically illiterate.

ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:

, but at least we are getting an idea of the conflict.

Click to expand...

It gave plenty of incorrect ideas as well.

I think the keyword here is entertaining, which you have pretty thoroughly proven as being incapable of.

Jock said:

I think the keyword here is entertaining, which you have pretty thoroughly proven as being incapable of.

Click to expand...

In the post right above yours:

Barry_bon_Loyale said:

And look, enjoy whatever you want and I mean that.  I don't give a good goddamn. 

Click to expand...

And incapable of...?  I don't get the concept of entertainment because I criticized Braveheart's accuracy while never telling anyone not to enjoy it?  How's that "jump to conclusions mat" coming along?