# General Discussion > Opinions >  The postmodern and handsome British

## Carlos

It could also be extended to the handsome and postmodern Vikings.


Unquestionably Hollywood has a fix with U.K. Viking or Roman theme in historical films.


I have realized that they are renewing the genre every X generations, lest anyone in the world forget that the interesting thing and the pattern of the universal model are these three monothematic themes.


There have also been productions of historical cultures from other countries, for example Japan, e.t.c. but curiously about the argument appears a character who is usually English because by time could not be American and coming from nothing to that culture gets to be the number one, the most handsome, intelligent and the best manages the situation without a course of 15 days.

Each country makes the films that it wants, but evidently the North American production is seen later in all the world, in short that they are bought in other countries that are already up to the cap of the history in cinema of U.K. Vikings, postmodern Romans; although in the case of Imperial Rome as everyone knows the emperors, wives, relatives e.t.c. They have an English look and the centurions are indeterminate but they look like very perfect between German, English and American. In short, the Italians make a film production about the Roman Empire made with Italian actors and the public is shocked, it can not be Italian!

----------


## Carlos

Handsome and postmodern Vikings who fight for ideals.


Canadian and Irish producer. Just tell the Canadian producers, since I also watch TV productions in documentary that the Vikings were also going for the gold, because everyone is going for the gold.
I have already seen in his documentaries the treatment they give in their productions to the topic of the discovery and conquest of America by the Spaniards, yes by the SPANIARDS.

----------


## Carlos

All the films made by Hollyood about the Roman Empire are based on Britain. Listen? The Romans took 200 years to conquer Hispania and because there was no union among the Hispanic peoples otherwise it would never have been conquered.
We are tired. Are they going to renew these themes for each generation? In the end we will get tired of the same issues.
Are they capable of making a film about another country, another culture in which no English character appears by surprise?


In the world there are dozens of countries with myths, legends, local histories, kings and queens. Agree that U.K. It is one of the countries that have changed the course of humanity because of its importance, but in the same way France, Portugal, Spain e.t.c. even Italy apart from the Roman Empire, the Borgias and something else. Belgium did not even name it in America and other places could not be placed on the world map, 
Although there are themes to make movies, people know that there were the glorious Spaniards and then in more modern times there is also a theme. In Spain there is a popular saying that when someone annoys you, they are told: "I am going to send you to the Belgian Congo", or "go to the Belgian Congo". As a child I did not understand it, after I understood it.

Germany and I do not name it because the poor all Hollywood productions we already know about the subject they are, I imagine that they will also have myths, legends and have had kings and queens as to make a film in Hollywood.
Do you want us to believe that the British, Vikings, Romans were superior to the rest of the world or how is this much movie of the same?

----------


## Angela

> It could also be extended to the handsome and postmodern Vikings.
> 
> 
> Unquestionably Hollywood has a fix with U.K. Viking or Roman theme in historical films.
> 
> 
> I have realized that they are renewing the genre every X generations, lest anyone in the world forget that the interesting thing and the pattern of the universal model are these three monothematic themes.
> 
> 
> ...


I just finished the second season of "Medici" on Netflix. Honestly, I kept watching mainly to see Florence up close and personal and the art reproductions, because somehow they took a very dramatic and romantic period and made it boring. 

Much of the blame is on the actors they chose to portray Lorenzo and Giuliano de Medici, not Italian, either of them, bearing no resemblance whatsoever to the original historical characters, and terrible actors on top of it. When Lorenzo is supposed to be riddled with indecision and full of anxiety for not only his family but Florence, he looks like he just has a toothache. Plus, he has about as much charisma and sex appeal as a wet noodle. There are good Italian actors in the minor roles, but it's not enough to save this snoozer.

The real Lorenzo: 



The fake Lorenzo: I mean, really? Does this look like the ruthless banker and politician of the history books? I know he was an intensely cultured man, and one of the greatest patron of the arts to ever live, but there was a whole other side to him.




Giuliano:



The fake Giuliano, who has none of the arrogance and swagger and brute masculinity of the historical person.


Then, strangely, they have a beautiful but quite dark and robust Italian actress portray the quite delicate Lucrezia Donati, Lorenzo's mistress. She's a good actress, though, so there's that. 




I won't even get into the liberties they took with the facts, i.e. the affair between Giuliano and Simonetta Vespucci, Botticelli's muse, is extremely dubious. 



However, countries are free to make the movies they wish. The U. S. is an "Anglo" country. English history is the most familiar "foreign" history to them. The Vikings always sell, because young men like to watch fighting and mayhem. To some extent, that's why they like movies about Rome. They're also familiar with ancient Rome because of the history they learn and because of the many movies made in the past about it.

If other countries, and that goes for Italy as well, want their own history on the big screen told their own way then they should take it upon themselves to raise the money and make those movies.

----------


## Carlos

Actually the casting for the Medici that you have shown is not accurate, I know something about cinema, since I am a film scriptwriter and I also studied dramatic art, getting to have a role in a film and two short films.
Here in Spain many sectors are now complaining that there are no historical productions, Blas de Lezo, Cortés, e.t.c. In Spain, cinema is in the hands of the extreme left, subsidized and productions are made even against Spain.
Now it has begun to broadcast productions of t.v. on Spanish, German, Swiss, Swedish, e.t.c. but the other day I was seeing one of a couple of Germans who are driving in their car in Mallorca and run over a motorcyclist, the German couple gets out of the car and the German takes his wallet and gets to give the Spanish bills up to 400 The Spanish takes the money and limps away. Let's see, I could not believe it and I thought what kind of garbage writer and garbage of German producer consented such barbarity, then it turns out that the run over was a lawyer, a nonsense, stop watching it, better watch American TV series if at this point We are going to be in that plan in Europe.

----------


## Carlos

Colón. 

*1:46`*
Isabel l de Castilla's characterization is to say: Where is flamenco tablao? and I even doubt that flamenco existed at that time.


I doubt very much that Isabel de Castilla had received Colon with her hair down.

Isabel II was the one who introduced the "peineta" comb to the court in response to French fashion, not Isabel l

----------


## Carlos

In this Spanish production for t.v. You can see the meeting of Queen Isabel of Castile with Columbus, it is not the first meeting, but as you can see the Queen of Castile does not receive Columbus as a whore.

----------


## bicicleur

I watched the serie Vikings and I checked some details and it seems to me the story is pretty genuine, what cannot be said of many other historical movies/series.
Where historical details are unknown it is intertwined with some legends/myths of which some parts obviously cannot be true.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Handsome and postmodern Vikings who fight for ideals.
> 
> 
> Canadian and Irish producer. Just tell the Canadian producers, since I also watch TV productions in documentary that the Vikings were also going for the gold, because everyone is going for the gold.
> I have already seen in his documentaries the treatment they give in their productions to the topic of the discovery and conquest of America by the Spaniards, yes by the SPANIARDS.


I beg to differ about the Vikings series. The "ideals" of the vikings represented in it are very realistic and surprisingly non-romanticized for a TV show. They are very clear about what drives them: glory, wealth, fame, honor, revenge, power. The plot does not sugar them too much, and to anyone with a sane mind they do come off as people with loose morals but a strong sense of personal pride and honor, and people who think too much about power, wealth and personal fame (being told as a glorious and invincible warrior and all of that). Even their family and friendship ties are dependant on the present interests. The Anglo-Saxons are also depicted like that, but with much more Christian hypocrisy and more cunning ways. I think it is mostly spot on. They do not come off as admirable heroes if you have a good sense of justice, but they are not monsters either.

----------


## Carlos

^^^
Please can you give me the dentist number of the Viking series.

----------


## Carlos

What's wrong? Everyone around him seems to be calm.
It made havoc in the carnivals of those years, I felt embarrassed by others.

----------


## Angela

I much preferred "The Last Kingdom", although I thought it was marred by "postmodern", 21st century anti-Christianity prejudice and bias. 

The "Northmen" or Vikings don't come across very well at all imo, although some of them have good qualities. Well, the Anglo-Saxons are not all shining lights either. Of course, they give a lot of the best qualities to the "hero", Uhtred, an Anglo-Saxon raised for a big part of his life as a "Dane". 

I think men probably view the "Vikings" differently. My son thought they were "awesome". :)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mryekqjzaUw

I'm all for the intellectual, brilliant Alfred and his vision.

The irony for people obsessed with "nationalism" is that there probably wasn't very much of a difference genetically between the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes.

----------


## Ygorcs

> ^^^
> Please can you give me the dentist number of the Viking series.


Sorry, sometimes I do not get foreign humor. That is, you could explain what you meant if you really wanted to start a discussion and not just to have people read and agree with your opinions.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I much preferred "The Last Kingdom", although I thought it was marred by "postmodern", 21st century anti-Christianity prejudice and bias. 
> 
> The "Northmen" or Vikings don't come across very well at all imo, although some of them have good qualities. Well, the Anglo-Saxons are not all shining lights either. Of course, they give a lot of the best qualities to the "hero", Uhtred, an Anglo-Saxon raised for a big part of his life as a "Dane". 
> 
> I think men probably view the "Vikings" differently. My son thought they were "awesome". :)
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mryekqjzaUw
> ...


Interesting, I did not know this series. I will check it out, if I enjoyed Vikings albeit with some reservations then I might enjoy it too. Thanks!

----------


## Carlos

Already when I studied film screenplay and t.v. we were told that at present the treatment given to women in the scripts had changed for obvious reasons towards gender equality. It is an analysis that I do. Anyway I have not seen a single chapter of the vikings series I did not even know it existed, I was really looking for film images. With these frames it is enough to see the treatment that is given to the monster theme viking in the cinema and the t.v. of the largest producers and exporters of t.v. and cinema.

----------


## Ailchu

imo this viking stuff and also the romans sell because the main target group in america and europe, mainly america, like these groups since they are part of the old romanticized european history. and because they are the most popular people in america. why not make a movie about some celts, or germanics fighting romans? because in america they are unciviliced barbarian loosers compared to rome. or cowards compared to the vikings. slavs? those filthy communists. the reason why they only show romans in britain with anglo actors is because they want to make them as "european" as possible in the eyes of their audience or as similar as possible to their audience so anglos. this picture would not look so good if the romans were not europeans but just romans with people from many different regions including people from regions that do not have a good reputation anymore in the west.
its the same with the ancient greeks. these people have to be "europeans" simply because of how strong their influence on modern europe is. maybe i'm just making things up and they just try to take the most popular actors that are available and just do not really care about historical accuracy in this regard. 
but it's everywhere the same. in china the movies about chinese history are more popular than those about romans or vikings.

----------


## Angela

^^Please take your nordicism and talk of Romans and Greeks not being "European" back to theapricty, stormfront and skadi where I'm sure you feel more at home.

We don't want it here.

----------


## bicicleur

of course on one hand, it is escapism, being in another world for some time and on the other hand, we want to recognise something of ourselves in it
and that is what the moviemakers try to give us in order to sell their product

but like in Vikings, there is no effort to make them look good, but they are genuine and consequent in their lifestyle and believs
and the Anglo-Saxons, they don't look good at all in the series

it is totally different form the movies or series they made 30 years ago or so, when the views were much more one-sided

----------


## Ailchu

> ^^Please take your nordicism and talk of Romans and Greeks not being "European" back to theapricty, stormfront and skadi where I'm sure you feel more at home.
> 
> We don't want it here.


this isnt my view but the one of the main audience. i put the word in quotation marks for a reason. there is this black and white thinking with nothing inbetween especially in america. imagine a hollywood movie about Mehmet II or Attilla or Djinghis Khan or about Xerxes. no instead you get crusaders fighting evil islam. spartans, who again did not look like spartans fighting evil persians with dark features or vikings fighting for their old pagan believes. they can only produce what they can sell. and the best stuff you can sell when it comes to history is pride. the romans and vikings are both people that are glorified in america. and they have to be similar to anglos.

----------


## Carlos

It will harm the Italian film industry when it decides to make Roman films. The world public is accustomed to see a Roman film where the protagonists of royalty and army are Anglo-Saxons in appearance or as much Scottish, British in definitava, the most English Roman royalty. It is a paradox but when Italy presents the productions worldwide the audience will say: They are not Romans!

----------


## Carlos

In addition they are renewing the usual themes: Vikings, Romans, history of U.K. every X generations and adapting them to the societies of the moment.
I've been watching Isabel I from England with my face powdered white, I want to see something else. What is it that has to be clear generation after generation with the same films always? Anyway, I do not care 25 years ago that I do not go to the movie theater movies.

----------


## Angela

> In addition they are renewing the usual themes: Vikings, Romans, history of U.K. every X generations and adapting them to the societies of the moment.
> I've been watching Isabel I from England with my face powdered white, I want to see something else. What is it that has to be clear generation after generation with the same films always? Anyway, I do not care 25 years ago that I do not go to the movie theater movies.


Part of the problem is that it costs an obscene amount of money to make these kinds of films, money that European film industries just don't have, which is why even England concentrates on smaller, more character driven films.

I'm not going to complain too much, though, because "The Gladiator" is one of my favorite films. :)

Has anyone yet seen Matteo Rovere's latest film, Romolo e Remo, Il Primo Re? Although a budget of eight million is substantial for an Italian film, I don't think it's really enough for this kind of story. Given that it seems Italian youth love American action movies, I also have my doubts that they'll take to a movie with subtitles because it's performed in some sort of ancient proto-Italic. I hope I'm wrong.

----------


## bicicleur

> Part of the problem is that it costs an obscene amount of money to make these kinds of films, money that European film industries just don't have, which is why even England concentrates on smaller, more character driven films.
> 
> I'm not going to complain too much, though, because "The Gladiator" is one of my favorite films. :)
> 
> Has anyone yet seen Matteo Rovere's latest film, Romolo e Remo, Il Primo Re? Although a budget of eight million is substantial for an Italian film, I don't think it's really enough for this kind of story. Given that it seems Italian youth love American action movies, I also have my doubts that they'll take to a movie with subtitles because it's performed in some sort of ancient proto-Italic. I hope I'm wrong.


that is a good example

Romole e Remo never existed, it is a myth, it is fiction in the first place.
I wonder then why people accept the myth but are so sensitive about the colour of the actor who's playing it.

It's simple marketing.
A movie is made for a certain audience, and they'll look for a person the audience can identify with.
A movie is an interpretation, it does not claim to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

----------


## Carlos

Gladiator is a formidable film indisputably but it will never have the magic nor will it be able to transfer us to the historical moment as I do that the film Caligula does, although it is an Italo-British co-production with most of the cast of main characters, it is not with Italian actors. that bring me closer to how it could be. And much more still the cinema of Pasolini or Jodorosky with much less production know how to recreate and capture past times as the cinema of Hollywood will never capture. It's a pity that Almodóvar does not embark on a historical film, I think it would be one of the few Directors that could recreate an ancient atmosphere and move us there.

----------


## Angela

> that is a good example
> 
> Romole e Remo never existed, it is a myth, it is fiction in the first place.
> I wonder then why people accept the myth but are so sensitive about the colour of the actor who's playing it.
> 
> *It's simple marketing.
> A movie is made for a certain audience, and they'll look for a person the audience can identify with.
> A movie is an interpretation, it does not claim to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.*


Double post.

----------


## Angela

> that is a good example
> 
> Romole e Remo never existed, it is a myth, it is fiction in the first place.
> I wonder then why people accept the myth but are so sensitive about the colour of the actor who's playing it.
> 
> It's simple marketing.
> A movie is made for a certain audience, and they'll look for a person the audience can identify with.
> A movie is an interpretation, it does not claim to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.


No movie of Romulus and Remus has ever been made before. FYI, most of the "mythic" elements, like being suckled by a she wolf, are not included. Rather, he is placing the story in a very realistic context of shepherds trying to found a new village. What the director is doing, according to reports, is quite complex. It's not some nationalistic origin story.

Such movies have certainly been made in northern European contexts, of course. Look at the movie based on the Beowulf poem, or all the Thor incarnations.



What if an actor like Daniele Liotti had played one of the lead characters in Beowulf, or Joe Manganiello played Thor or Vercingetorix, for that matter? Personally, Manganiello would certainly appeal to me more than Helmsworth.:) However, there would have been an outcry, and you know it, including from you. Would you think, well, it's just a myth, so who cares? I doubt it.





Now, as you say, a lot of this is marketing, and knowing your audience, but not all of it. I think you'd object if Manganiello played that character, even if it was an Italian movie marketed mainly to Italians and Southern Europeans. 

Also, just generally, how much suspension of disbelief should a director demand of the audience, no matter the nature of that audience? Are Anglo and Northern European audiences so clueless or so tied to Nordicist myths about Romans that they'd have a problem with Romans who look like Italians? That's sad if true.

Also, in this day and age, movies are international. It's not the 60s. I think a little verisimilitude would be welcome. American movies engender criticism as well as high box office, you know. 

There's one auteur who tries to do it right to the extent possible, and that's Mel Gibson. The actor who he cast to play Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ" was altered to look more "East Med", and the other actors were chosen with an eye to what contemporary Judeans and Romans would have looked like. It all contributed to making a better movie, a masterpiece, imo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm_-kNaPsp4

Likewise, in making a movie about Amerindians, he did a novel thing: he cast Amerindians, not Italians, as Hollywood movies used to do. It's a very good film imo, if not for everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXuwjdQx924

----------


## Carlos

[QUOTE = bicicleur; 566890] que es un buen ejemplo 
Romole e Remo nunca existió, es un mito, es ficción en primer lugar. 
Entonces me pregunto por qué la gente acepta el mito pero es tan sensible sobre el color del actor que lo interpreta. 
Es marketing simple. 
Una película está hecha para una audiencia determinada, y buscarán una persona con la que la audiencia pueda identificarse. 
Una película es una interpretación, no pretende decir la verdad y nada más que la verdad. [/ CITA]

Carmen also never existed, if the color of the skin does not matter and yet this version is called Carmen Jones. There are many versions of Carmen, and also as Spanish and as for many Spaniards the Opera Carmen does not consider it ours, nor recognize that history nor the characters, it is an invention of a Frenchman and has nothing to do with our culture.

<font style="vertical-align: inherit;"><font style="vertical-align: inherit;">



From a European vision that until recently has been homogeneous and not multi cultural as the North American this film could have been simply called Carmen, but evidently the Hollywood cinema is structured taking into account the color and skin tones. In Carmen Jones perhaps the purpose was the promotion or visualization of the opera singers black. So in the case of films of British history, Romans and Vikings and all played by Anglo-Saxons is not something innocent and by chance and more when it is a cinema that reaches the whole world or almost.

----------


## bicicleur

> No movie of Romulus and Remus has ever been made before. FYI, most of the "mythic" elements, like being suckled by a she wolf, are not included. Rather, he is placing the story in a very realistic context of shepherds trying to found a new village. What the director is doing, according to reports, is quite complex. It's not some nationalistic origin story.
> 
> Such movies have certainly been made in northern European contexts, of course. Look at the movie based on the Beowulf poem, or all the Thor incarnations.
> 
> 
> 
> What if an actor like Daniele Liotti had played one of the lead characters in Beowulf, or Joe Manganiello played Thor or Vercingetorix, for that matter? Personally, Manganiello would certainly appeal to me more than Helmsworth.:) However, there would have been an outcry, and you know it, including from you. Would you think, well, it's just a myth, so who cares? I doubt it.
> 
> 
> ...


So, you think movie directors are not doing their job properly in selecting the right cast for their audience?

I must say, I'm not into movies, if've seen very few.
Like Beowulf, I don't know what you're talking about, I even don't know the story.

I haven't seen "The Passion of the Christ" , don't know it. I have seen Braveheart, didn't like it, he glorified the main character to much, which he played himself, and the story is very inaccurate, allthough he tried to make it look genuine.

But maybe you're right, because I'm not an expert, and I'm not interested, because I know, they are just stories, the truth doesn't sell.
It's a bussiness, and with very high budgets.
The producers have to know what they are doing, and still it is a gamble.

----------


## Angela

> *So, you think movie directors are not doing their job properly in selecting the right cast for their audience?
> *
> I must say, I'm not into movies, if've seen very few.
> Like Beowulf, I don't know what you're talking about, I even don't know the story.
> 
> I haven't seen "The Passion of the Christ" , don't know it. I have seen Braveheart, didn't like it, he glorified the main character to much, which he played himself, and the story is very inaccurate, allthough he tried to make it look genuine.
> 
> But maybe you're right, because I'm not an expert, and I'm not interested, because I know, they are just stories, the truth doesn't sell.
> It's a bussiness, and with very high budgets.
> The producers have to know what they are doing, and still it is a gamble.


It depends. What is the goal? Making as much money as possible by using "big name" stars who will pull in movie goers, or making the most accurate depiction of a time and of people in that place and time?

I ultimately didn't care that they picked Russell Crowe to play a Spaniard/Roman in "The Gladiator". It was a great story, well made, as it should have been, given what it cost, with good enough acting, and a message that appealed to me, so, it drew me in regardless, but I certainly did have to work on my suspension of disbelief for a bit.

"The Passion of the Christ" is, imo, artistically a superior movie.

Take a look at the you tube clips. It should give you an idea.

----------


## Carlos

But Gladiator pretends to be Hispanic in the plot but finally it was not. Yes, his wife was an Iberian, when he is training his daughter in the equestrian arts, who then kill them. I've seen it for a thousand years, but I remember it that way.

----------


## Angela

> It depends. What is the goal? Making as much money as possible by using "big name" stars who will pull in movie goers, or making the most accurate depiction of a time and of people in that place and time?
> 
> I ultimately didn't care that they picked Russell Crowe to play a Spaniard/Roman in "The Gladiator". It was a great story, well made, as it should have been, given what it cost, with good enough acting, and a message that appealed to me, so, it drew me in regardless, but I certainly did have to work on my suspension of disbelief for a bit.
> 
> "The Passion of the Christ" is, imo, artistically a superior movie.
> 
> Take a look at the you tube clips. It should give you an idea.


This is so far and above any of the usual Anglo films depicting the Christ story, partly because of his sheer artistry, but partly also because it looked REAL. 

It almost got me back to Mass. :)




The previous all Italian version scandalized people but it was also masterful, imo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzT6Lwj1yhA

----------


## Angela

> But Gladiator pretends to be Hispanic in the plot but finally it was not. Yes, his wife was an Iberian, when he is training his daughter in the equestrian arts, who then kill them. I've seen it for a thousand years, but I remember it that way.


Sorry, I don't remember that. Maybe I just missed it.

The movie was full of Anglo people playing Romans however. Joaquin Phoenix was a little more believable. 

As for the black version of Carmen, I have no problem with it. Let's say that people in Africa want to put on a Shakespeare play. Are they supposed to import Anglo actors? What I object to is pretending that some of these casting choices are accurate phenotypically.

----------


## Carlos

Interpreters of historical films.

----------


## Angela

> It is a relax and a tranquility without an abuse of the blue eyes that both appear on the screen in Romans, Vikings and history of U.K. Isabel l already knows with the white face ordering to kill Maria Tudor. They are a few decades of too many Anglo-Saxon blue eyes in historical cinema.


Now you're being as prejudiced as you accuse them of being. NOT COOL, and not acceptable on this forum.

----------


## bicicleur

> It depends. What is the goal? Making as much money as possible by using "big name" stars who will pull in movie goers, or making the most accurate depiction of a time and of people in that place and time?
> 
> I ultimately didn't care that they picked Russell Crowe to play a Spaniard/Roman in "The Gladiator". It was a great story, well made, as it should have been, given what it cost, with good enough acting, and a message that appealed to me, so, it drew me in regardless, but I certainly did have to work on my suspension of disbelief for a bit.
> 
> "The Passion of the Christ" is, imo, artistically a superior movie.
> 
> Take a look at the you tube clips. It should give you an idea.


the movie bussiness is about selling, not about accuracy

I liked to watch Vikings, and after a while I went to check some historical details.
To my surprise they were correct. 
But history does not give a complete picture, many links are missing.
Then there are also some myths interwoven in the serie.
And when you watch these parts, it is slightly amusing and you immeadiately know it can't be true.
I like it when they don't pretend.

----------


## Angela

The opposite is about to happen with Cleopatra. They are supposedly going to cast her as an African or at least North African woman. That is totally objectionable. She was a Macedonian. 

I don't like when they re-write history.

This is a totally political move.

----------


## bicicleur

I'm afraid re-writing history has been done as long as history exists.
It seems they'll extend the effort.

----------


## mihaitzateo

Why there are no movies about Franks, anyway?
Frankish Empire/Holy Roman Empire was the strongest in Europe.
No movies about AngloSaxons either. Or movies depicting AngloSaxons in a bad light.
Lots of movies about Normans, nothing mentioned that some French Celtic warriors joined the Normans.
Lots of prejudice, in Hollywood movies.
Lots of Vikings migrated to British Isles because they feared Holy Roman Empire.

AngloSaxons were certainly more lawful and organized than the Vikings.
Nothing mentioned about the fact that Norse people, Vikings included were fishing a lot in the North Sea.
Raising goats and pigs is a Viking activity, but fishing code in the North Sea, is not.
That is a very strange "logic".
No movie about the Viking that sailed first time in North America, either.
No movie about NorseGaels and them settling Iceland.
In Hollywood movies, unlike in the real history, British Isles Celts and AngloSaxons need to be enemies with the Vikings.
Hollywood Geniuses did not found out yet about Brian Boru, the legendary Irish king,lol, that defeated some Vikings army.

About the Viking series:
Nothing mentioned about Southern Britain Celtic people, like Bretons or Welsh people.
Lol.

----------


## Carlos

^^^^
The postmodern and handsome Vikings in the cinema always win, but in Al-Andalus they were defeated.




The fact that the Vikings discovered America is tiresome. This man of photography presents documentaries, and the treatment of everything related to the discovery and conquest of America by the Spanish is quite negative and yet the treatment of the Vikings is idealized.
In these documentaries, very Amerindian actors are chosen to represent the soldiers and historical figures in the conquest and discovery of America and yet when they do it with actors to illustrate about the Portuguese in America, the casting of actors is totally adjusted, Why in one case and in the other, no?
People come out in those documentaries that go crazy looking for Chinese boats to show that the Chinese arrived before the Spaniards or stones with engraved runes to show that the Vikings came to America before the Spaniards, logically never get results.


Map of the universities founded by the Spanish in America and the Philippines. Why does that man in the photo above never talk about this in his documentaries?

----------


## mihaitzateo

Is not post-modern, is just Hollywood nonsense.
Was not some movie at Hollywood about some hero from Scotland,where he appears with his face painted in current flag of Scotland :) ?

There is a great confusion between Picts which were already assimilated by the Gaelic Scots when William Wallace actually lived and Gaelic Scots.
Anyway highly doubt there is any historical account about having William Wallace in some battle with his face painted white and blue.
And that is not the only inaccuracy from BraveHeart, are more.
Some person found some inaccuracies in BraveHeart.
https://thehande.wordpress.com/2011/...ing-the-movie/

----------


## mihaitzateo

> imo this viking stuff and also the romans sell because the main target group in america and europe, mainly america, like these groups since they are part of the old romanticized european history. and because they are the most popular people in america. why not make a movie about some celts, or germanics fighting romans? because in america they are unciviliced barbarian loosers compared to rome. or cowards compared to the vikings. slavs? those filthy communists. the reason why they only show romans in britain with anglo actors is because they want to make them as "european" as possible in the eyes of their audience or as similar as possible to their audience so anglos. this picture would not look so good if the romans were not europeans but just romans with people from many different regions including people from regions that do not have a good reputation anymore in the west.
> its the same with the ancient greeks. these people have to be "europeans" simply because of how strong their influence on modern europe is. maybe i'm just making things up and they just try to take the most popular actors that are available and just do not really care about historical accuracy in this regard. 
> but it's everywhere the same. in china the movies about chinese history are more popular than those about romans or vikings.


Russia was founded by some Swedish Vikings. Search about Rurik, to see the real history, not what Hollywood knows :) .
Slavs were allied to the Vikings, fighting Frankish Empire/Holy Roman Empire. About 800-900 AD.
Some Vikings were fighting as elite guards for the king of the Eastern Roman Empire, "the Varangian Guard".
First king of the Central Europe Slavs was Samo, a Frankish warrior and merchant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samo
Celts were a group of ethnicities, with British Celts as a separate group. They were 2nd civilized, after Roman Empire and Greeks, in Europe.
Had soap, were having strong agriculture, cattle and sheep raising, making beer, had fine blacksmiths, jewelry, were shaving etc.
You cannot call the Celts just some "uncivilized barbarians", when they actually had razors and very fine drinking recipients.
Just check the archaeological discoveries related to the Celts.

Vikings were actually most uncivilized, from Europe, in those times, together with the Baltic nations.
Vikings were actually living mostly from fishing, did not practiced too much agriculture or raising animals.
Irish had also pirates (they raided to the cities of other British Celts, not so much unity between them), before the Viking Age.
Etc.

----------


## paul333

I think the Film 'Mongol' (2007 )about Genghis Khan was one of the best historical movies I had seen. It was made by Russia, Germany and Kazakhstan, and filmed in Chinese 'Inner Mongolia', and Kazakhstan, even though it was subtitled it was very good.

----------


## exceededminimumso..



----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Don’t know why, but I did a lot of research online (not studies but more physical anthropological writings from early 20th century) and this handsome British ideal seems to be epitomised by upper class Edinburghers - Edinburgh also happens to be the redhead hotspot of the world

----------

