Btw, it seems shoulder pads indeed existed (at least in the east) in 1205 (depicting one of the Philistines in the cathedral of Chartres, this is Goliath there (original was damaged in WWII)).
Interesting (and great statue, too).
Though it doesn't surprise me, it makes sense that they existed... but they were made infamous by the comic books artists/game designers.
And because of that, I really hate shoulderpads.
They draw/design shoulderpads only to look cool, and rarely have any purpose whatsoever, and sometimes, they even seem to slow our hero down.
Okay, you can say that ''shouldepads act as armour'', but there are many examples of characters completely without armour... but with shoulderpads!
This might seem a little silly to a non-comic book reader, but in our (comic book) world, shoulderpads are infamous... but surprisingly very much used by artists.
Aye, shoulder pads, especially non- or less-historical ones, add a level of badassery, which can only be compared with the chainmail bikinis-and-bras in some games.
Aye, shoulder pads, especially non- or less-historical ones, add a level of badassery, which can only be compared with the chainmail bikinis-and-bras in some games.
And here's a thread in another forum with another interesting film, which is partially related to the above one (in terms of public relations/propaganda and its effects on society and mass control). Ironically enough, it seems to be North Korean propaganda - "fight fire with fire", or "a wedge beats out another wedge", as we say here.
What these things basically do is prevent you from raising your arms up to at least shoulder level, left alone beyond that. Still, fantasy knights (with roughly 15th century armour and a 13th century pot helmet) use a two-handed sword as a long sword (hands on the grip) instead of half-sword. But enough ranting; David Nicolle argued to be very careful about especially Goliath depictions in history since his armour is described in the Bible and some artists tried to follow it (that's e.g. why MacBible's Goliath is basically the only person in all eightysomething illustrations wearing greaves).
The statue above (thanks for the link!) looks IMHO more like 1300 than 1200 but I'm hardly an expert. Scale armour was probably more widespread than what one might think as a newbie reenactor looking at the first couple of images. Still, I cannot help to consider it a bit of historicism AND 13th century elements like the helmet and fancy decoration. Ailettes are the only high-medieval shoulder protection I can think of.
Well, I didn' even found it enjoyably bad, just plain bad. Maybe it's because I haven't watched it in 2001, but rather just a month ago, when I watched the whole trilogy for the first time.
Which is a rather shame, because I like most of those actors very much - Brendan Fraser is always a joy to watch, Oded Fehr is a very cool actor, Arnold Vosloo is excellent as a villain, Rachel Weisz is wonderful, and (even if I hate American wrestling) I simply love Dwayne ''The Rock'' Johnson. He is not a good serious actor, but man, he is so fun to watch in almost every film, because he doesn't take himself so seriously as other wrestlers-turned-actors.
And I like quasi-archaeology/adventure/fantasy genre.
So what went wrong, then?
I think that several factors determined that, but most notably - the inclusion of a kid character as one of the main protagonists... Oh, God... Haven't the filmmakers learned anything from Star Wars - Phantom Menace? Nobody wants to see a kid as a main character. I don't mean a regular kid, but a kid that acts like the boy in Mummy Returns. He doesn't act as an 8 year old boy - he almost shows no fear, he is more resourceful than Bear Grylls, he speaks ancient Egyptian, his dialogue is amazingly bad, and the kid-actor that plays the part is baaaad. I know it is hard to direct children in the films, but man, he was bad.
We have a cituation when
his mother dies
and he is emotionless. He doesn't show sorrow, or pain, or anger.
After a while, he starts to cry a bit, but when he gets an idea, he simply stops crying and starts to talk normally and to lay out his plan. The film was obviously more family-friendly, but not in the good way, and even the jokes and the dialogs were worse than in the first Mummy.
If I knew that I should completely turn off my brain while watching it, then maybe it would have been a lot better, but alas, I didn't. But aside from the big problem (the super-kid as a main character) I also had some nitpicky things, but also major plotholes that bugged me:
- Why does Jonathan continues to drive a bus frantically if all mummy-guards are already inside? Wouldn't it have more sense to stop the bus and deal with them more easily?
- They tell us that you can only kill a warrior of Anubis if you cut off his head. However, we clearly see them dying several times when impaled by the Medjai swords in their torsos.
- Rick actually running from sunlight... Sunlight doesn't work that way.
- Instead of applying the real face of Dwayne Johnson on the Scorpion King, they did a bad CGI of his face. I know it was 2001, and that CGI wasn't that strong yet, but don't do a max closeup of his CGI face then.
- How was CGI was worse than in the first Mummy (I'm looking at you, crappy scarabs)
- The sub-plot with Evie (R. Weisz) being an reincarnation of Nefretiri... Completely pointless, lke Evie wasn't a good character already, we have to see her fight now (and why didn't Imhotep recognised her in the first film, when he clearly knew her before, as we saw in the flashback).
- The kid stopping the train with the handbrake, exactly on the location where they were going. If so, why didn't the train ''driver'' already stopped the train regulary?
- In the final battle, we see that Medjai have thousands of members. Why didn't they protect Hamunaptra in the first place (in the first film), if there are so many of them?
- In the final battle,, we can't see any dead bodies of fallen Medjai.
- I don't remember anymore, but I know that there was more.
Funny thing, it's one of the few films where I found myself literally fecapalming myself.
I did it with the new Conan the Barbarian film.
Anyway, perhaps I'm too nitpicky, but I really wanted to like Mummy 2, but I didn't at all.
I give you that the movie is silly, light-hearted and can make no sense at times, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.
By the way, the only time I did one of those facepalms in theaters was while watching Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. When they incinerate the corpse of the old Lord Loxley. Let me say that again, they incinerate the corpse of the old Lord Loxley, their loved ones, a loving and caring, good man, a nobleman who wanted igualitarian treatment for all men.
And they go and burn him cheerfully, thinking this is Troy and it's a mighty sight to see bodies being burned as a sign of respect. They didn't put coins in his eyes and mouth because... probably it's in the deleted scenes!
I mean, COME ON! You're burning his body! What is he supposed to do at Doomsday? The dead will rise and carry their tombstones, anyone?
Good Lord, damnit. What were you thinking, Sir Ridley? You know Christianity demands burial and forbids cremation of the dead, you've put it on screen, said by Balian himself in Kingdom of Heaven!
Even my friends who do not study History looked at me and asked "This cannot be right, they did not burn their dead, right?", and from my facepalm they got an answer...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
You know what i mean 
