Godefroy Ryckewaert: • LOGAN THE WOLF (a WOLV... Deloraine: • Deloraine - Ragnarok (... Alina Gingertail: • My Mother Told Me (Gin... Marobud: • Dressing up a 10th A N... #wolverine #vikings #history
I was listening to the guys behind the Northman film discuss it, and they talked about how the western trend of hollywood Vikings is so comically far off from the real thing. They mention how the Vikings always have that long hair and beards, but every piece of stone art from Viking age Scandinavia shows men with... well... bowl cuts and usually clean shaven.
Well outside of helmets they also wore pretty colorful clothes, imagine these warrior peacocks I guess rohirrim from lord of the rings are the most accurate and badassely adapted Viking warriors design out there
They are not ahistorical, but they are from a different time period (Bronze Age) and were most likely ceremonial. I think only a couple of Bronze Age horned helmets have been found.
@@greendalf123 Having long hair and beards could kill you in battle, that's why all armies thru whole history mostly installed that rule that soldiers have to be shaven. Ofcourse I am not saying that there was noone with long hair and beard, but you are right that it was definitely less common than people tend to believe because of movies.
@@АртурАртуров-ф4ю The difference is that Game of Thrones, while inspired by actual history, is set in an explicitly fantasy world, on a planet that's not Earth, with different continents, with a completely different history, and with things like magic, dragons, and white walkers.
All the "Vikings" in TV look more like medieval bikers than anything else. Black leather, tattoos, beards, side crops. I think one of the few media that did them justice was Vinland Saga, a Japanese anime lol.
@@chrisdiokno5600But probably not during Wartime. There is a reason why mostly all Warriors in every country and age shaved. Some historians even believe shaving developed alongside the first true warrior castes in the early bronze age. After all you most likely find a grooming set in a warriors grave. Beards and long hair are unpractical in combat. Also having hundreds or thousands of man, living close together, without modern medicine or the ability to wash themself means... a lot of louse, fleas etc. If you only can do the bare minimum of hygiene during campaign, the last thing you want is long hair + long beard.
from what I've read and watched of historical vikings, they're always way cooler than whatever Hollywood spits out I edited because I read the comment completely wrong.
You know, to think that most people died from infection and diarrhea, or a combination of both (having diarrhea, fighting weakened, getting badly injured and infected and than dying), it is quite boring
The classic horned helmets at least had a mystical quality to them. It did actually make the Vikings seem larger than life. Unlike the no color grading grunge look they go with now
As a Scandinavian myself (Swedish), I think the best representation of this time period is Vinland Saga. All the clothing, armours, etc. are for the most part accurate, and the few things that aren't are for good reasons in-universe.
Scandinavians, Japanese and Arabs probably got the worst treatment from the western entertainment industry. I was actually really happy about the Witcher show completely ditching the Slavic themes because it means our culture has no chance of becoming a western fashion trend like anything "Viking" related is.
On positive note we have animated series Blue Eye Samurai, Last Samurai the movie from 2000s even old Shogun series was good and only flaw was that the Jesuits weren't good guys as shown in the movie
Honestly, I think that treatment of "typical medieval knights" in hollywood was even worse. The cultures you mentioned were of course depicted nonsencicaly, but at least somehow cool with attempts of "epic design". But look at medieval knights in most of the movies. They look like a mix of scarecrow and the Tin man from Oz. There are few exceptions of course, but majority is just laughable (even in the grandest movies like Braveheart). Game industry gave them for some reason a bit better treatment, same as some famous fantasy movies. But actual movies supposed to be historical? Not even an attempt of good looking design (not mentioning historical accuracy of course).
I'm just fucking fed up with undercut hairstyles in historical or fantasy settings. The ONLY place where it works is Trilogy era Poland (so Olgierd can get away with it).
Early medieval Danes did have a peculiar style of undercut though where they shaved just the back of the head (kinda like a reverse mullet). This style was traditionally also common among the Franks and the Normans. In the Vikings TV show, Bjorn has this haircut in seasons 1 and 2. It is one of the few times that that show actually depicts a historically accurate hairstyle.
Ironically, some Georgians around 15th century or so at least were described to wear undercut hairstyles with buns/ponytails. Where the irony comes is that nowadays conservative traditionalist Georgians berate their countrymen for wearing hair like that, thinking it's untraditional and unmanly. Because contemporary popular culture has convinced them that's not what a traditional Georgian should look like🤦♀ There's your argument for trying to be historically accurate instead of twisting it to suit contemporary tastes.
Fantasy settings don't have to be historically accurate, my guy. It's fantasy. That's like saying Lord of the Rings isn't historically accurate because the Hobbits wear breasted vests.
My biggest gripe with Hollywood vikings is that they got no real relationship with nature. If you travel to different important archaeological and historical sites in Scandinavia you quickly realize the distances they traveled everyday and every week in difficult terrain, especially in Norway. Still today even the city dwellers of Norway know to respect nature and dont go on longer hiking trips without some planning. In movies tho, vikings tend to teleport around a lot, and even if they were to get caught in a storm, they are totally unfazed afterward. They never get tired from travel but it doesn't have the effect of portraying vikings as strong, just portraying their environment as bland and unchallenging
i think it is largely a cgi problem. they can now fake locations much easier and they don't have to physically go to the location. when they were making lawrence of arabia or saladin or even something more historical-fantasy like the good the bad and the ugly(i know those are all desert films) they had to actually go shoot in a desert and find desert wilderness which causes reality to creep into the film by way of the cast and crew's experiences. maybe it doesn't make an immediate change on that filmmaker or film but if you are forced to go shoot on location every time your crews and directors and everyone else is going to slowly get some degree of experience with the real world even if it's not perfect. now shooting on location is often used for establishing shots while everything else is done in a hanger. obviously it's always a spectrum and there are still people who shoot on location but this is a major problem just like cgi is a problem for influencing to the decline of practical effects.
You are right, but honestly I have so much gripe with Hollywood Vikings that I am really starting to hate Hollywood and the US for even dare calling what they are presenting as Viking. The Vikings were closer to nature, more spiritual and moral, they wore actual helmets, not horned ones. They were no more brutal and uncivilized than the Romans, and were far smarter than Hollywood give them credit for being, many Vikings very peaceful and tried to settle, the Vikings build castles, churches and forts, they did not leave their cities open and undefended, the historical relationships in Hollywood is butchered and totally wrong, the show Vikings depicts the Christians as being treacherous, and Rollo as being the treacherous brother of Ragnar, they were not brother, in fact Ragnar's son Ivar did also not kill Sigurd Snake in the Eye...the Vikings was far more loyal than that....and I could go on and on and on. I think Scandinavia should make movies depicting Hollywood as a den of sex-trading money hungry child molesters and see how much Hollywood like their story being perverted like they have perverted the Vikings history!
@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution TBF, they likely base them off the, usually Christian, sources on the Norse. Also, Viking was a job, ergo raiders. Plus, helmets with adornments with horns and wings likely would mostly be for ceremonial shit, or for non war meetings
This is something I totally agree with. The best representation of Norse culture, clothing and equipment, to this date are "The Northman" and "Vinland Saga". Robert Eggers is quickly becoming my favorite film director. His attention to historical accuracy and detail in every film he makes is so good. I just wish more directors put that much effort in their work as he does.
This isn't only happening in Hollywood. My country, Korea too has same issue on tv series and historic dramas with ridiculous outfits and inaccurate armors. And it does change how people view certain historic times and era due to that, while real historic designs and wares were much cooler and impressive. For example, lots of Korean believe that soldiers from 17th century Korea were all dressed in light clothes with barely any armor at all. Just wearing blue and white clothes with typical Korean hats with no protection at all. Or used guns, despite pintlock guns been main weapon for Korean army, especially during the struggle time against northern nomadic tribe invasions for many years. Just making normal citizens to believe we had only bows and never utilized gun powder weaponry. It could be very frustrating.
@@skyereave9454 Ah yes that one is pretty old now. But it did great work on costumes, though not much immersion since characters behaved as if they lived in modern era. But that's a film. Though films do make similar mistakes, such as 안시성, which was pure fantasy.... sigh
@magos3176 That one was pretty bad from a historical point of view. I think 한산 and 노량 were an improvement on Joseon era equipment. Not perfect but better.
@@kman9884 So!? It was the truth and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than warriors going around looking like some sort of Hollywood sado masochistic heavymetal sex addicts
I think your most important point here is that popular "historical" fiction is where most people actually get their information about history from, and so if a fictionalized version of a historical period has enough proliferation via entertainment media, it becomes what people actually believe. And that absolutely matters, especially with the Vikings or also the Roman Empire because they're referenced in present politics, and so we need people to know the reality and not some romanticized projection that can be used to manipulate them.
Most of us in the U.S. have considered Hollywood to be 'cringe' for over a decade. We've just been wondering when everyone else was going to figure it out. Banks are making movies,..not artists.
@@erenerdemir7923how exactly would socialism fix Hollywood? Lots of Hollywood films are flops these days, or they at least don’t bring in as much revenue as they used to. It’s not capitalism that’s the problem, it’s laziness.
@@greenwizard7592 i don't agree with less revenue. Netflix's stocks are constantly increasing. Making cheesy low risk productions that repeats last 50 movies they made is the problem. You may not like these kind of movies but a vast audience do like it. Market is a hidden censorship. George Lucas also used to say this
As a Kyivan Rus reenactment enthusiast, I wholeheartedly agree. What baffles me the most is that a good level of accuracy, believable equipment, and combat style is not that hard to achieve, arguably cheaper than what Hollywood uses. Sure, you can remove helmets on the main characters sometimes for the sake of acting, you can make swordfights more theatrical, you can have some main hero's recklessness in a fight... but why the fuck would you replace chainmail and lamellars with something that looks like a ballsack?)
Cost? Because you want to use a theme or create a subtextual narrative? I can think of more reasons why the costumes might not be a historical facsimile and, I can also understand why you are so invested in your opposition to dramatic licence and interpretation. There is a time and a place for the authentic and precise but, there is more of a need to escape into the less rigid realm of the fictional.
@@upsidedownnoise I wouldn't say I've ever been opposed to stylized or overly dramatic depictions of Medieval warfare. I have a problem only with those that don't make sense and cause disbelief. Especially when the alternative looks nice. I have examples.
Bikings is just another example what you can learn of history from entertainment TV or movie. One would think that nowadays historical films and series would be far more accurate. But to think that evolution always moves forward is a mistake.
I do think it's a terrible shame that so few creators of video games, films and TV shows care about historical accuracy. It's strange, there used to be this myth in popular culture about Vikings wearing horned helmets which has now been replaced with the myth of the partially shaved head.
Video games are more allowed to inaccurate due to gameplay very important to the games fun. You should get the costume, environments, weapons designs, and way of speaking as close to accurate as possible, but combat scenarios and general feats you character can do, you can throw away accurate. You looking for historical authenticity when it comes to games.
Popular entertainment will never depict historically accurate Vikings because they were actually very generic and normal looking. They are basically the same as contemporary Anglo-Saxons and Franks.
The more I'm learning about actual history, the more I'm shocked by how much of it has been misrepresented in the popular understanding. And it's even more visible with eastern cultures which is a big shame actually. Thank you for bringing this up! It's important, people!
Northman actually the best so far when it comes to visual authenticity. Also, Vinland Saga despite being manga/anime is also great visual presentation & historically authentic, way way better than Hollywood.
Historical accuracy might not be possible all the time. You have to make some changes to fit the story you try to tell. Some events happening at different time, someone still alive while they shouldn't be, or just have completely made up things in that period. But what's important is historical authenticity. While the thing are made up, never happened, or not like it's portrayed, at least the setting, the people in it, what they wear, what tools they use, that should be consistent with the time period they want to portray. And that was my problem with AC Valhalla. So far ubisoft was pretty authentic with the game world, even if most of the game is fantasy. But when I saw ACV trailer and gameplay, all I saw was pop-culture viking portrayals.
On Valhalla, as a British person it don’t really like how the celts are depicted, the first phase of inhabitants of the isles are depicted as roaming savages covered in bones and Celtic religion and folklore are depicted as the byproducts of insanity. The wicker man is also depicted despite it likely never existing. It does get slightly better when the Welsh celts are depicted but it’s still not great.
You should see what they did to my Favorite Roman/Greek in Vikings. "Lorica Musculata and Segemtata." Hollywood not going for the Byzantine look, but Early Imp Rome looks Edit: I'm worried what the Varagain Guards would look like in the Viking Valhalla show
I wrote the similar and then I found your comment. I am glad I am not the only one tired of Romans having the Segmentata armor the whole millenia of their rich history (while also being depicted as useless as everything slashes through it)
Your complaint seems valid but without providing examples of what you think is poorly done and why that is so, it sounds exactly like complaining, rather than critiquing. Unusual (to Western eyes) haircuts and intricate tattoos, for instance, were pretty common in Japanese history and culture. I'm not disagreeing with you. I just wish you'd have been more specific, point by point.
Might just sound like a semantic difference, but it comes down to accuracy vs authenticity. Both are important in their own way, but authenticity is what we need more of in media. The fan film being a good example: we don't expect it to be historically accurate, but it should be authentic to the period with its costumes, environs, etc... A good example of it done right is Vinland Saga, it's very authentic cause the author is a big fan of that time period and researched it very well. It's not historically accurate for Thorkell the Tall to sink a boat with a boulder, but it IS authentic with how he became immortalized in the legends told of him. And it doesn't really contradict the historical events either.
There are two thing I hate about Hollywood historical aesthetics: one is these hipster undercuts. I hate that hairstyle, and whether it's accurate or not, it looks modern because it's a contemporary hairstyle and it wouldn't have been used very much at all in historical or fantasy media 20 years ago. The other one is the drab colour palette of the costumes. Everyone wears black, grey and washed-out brown. It's inaccurate, but it's also boring and ugly. The middle ages were very colourful in this regard. I'd love to see more movies actually depict this. I'm so happy The Lord of the Rings was made when it was because today they would have Aragorn look like some American biker dressed like Dani Filth and Hobbits wearing black leather jackets.
I’ve been tired of this for a long time too. Like as much as I love The Last Kingdom for adapting my favorite book series, the costume and character design got worse every season. Then they also kinda just stopped sticking to the storyline of the books for some reason. People can say that historical accuracy doesn’t matter all they want, but to that I ask why are they making historical films & TV if not for people who are interested in history?
I could never get beyond the square shields of the Anglo-Saxons. In reality, the differences between Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians, as far as their over all look, was minor details of fashion.
@@ebreiss THIS! I wish they’d do the easy thing and differentiate the Norse & Anglo-Saxons by shield paintings (crosses or such on Saxon shields and serpents/axes on Norse shields)
That's fair. None of this really matters to me as long as I enjoy myself, but with you guys as the audience it seems fitting to be upset over such slights.
As a historical nut for Norse mythology and Danish culture, and an enjoyer of modern depiction of the Ostmen, It’s very convenient to get upset about details such as inaccurate titles, clothing and armor to the timeframe. It’s understandable to be mildly upset that there hairstyles and clothing aren’t “true to history” but let’s be honest here, details such as this have been changed throughout history. Ancient theatre never got it right, the writer did what they liked and twisted the story simply because they can, all while playing a game of telephone with depicted history. Their art is their own, and what their own is what they like, not necessarily what any of us will like. It’s also well to note that most people aren’t ignorant to theatrical history and real history. Again, a game of telephone. Most people know that Assassins Creed is loosely based on history with some characters who didn’t exist, the same can be said with depictions in the Northman or Vikings. A good story is a good story, and I will take it for what it is. If the story isn’t good, I will analyze and make sure my stories don’t make the same mistakes. Enjoy it for what it is, not what it could be.
I like how you pointed out how it's not a new phenomenon to misrepresent small historical details. Good stories are good stories. People have always known and done this. And if you can achieve this through the most historical accuracy possible then all the better. It isn't exactly required though.
Because the number of them and people that give a shit about something being accurate in entertainment is so minuscule to the point it may as well not exist in any real context
I feel like if you learn to separate these shows from reality and just enjoy them for what they are you might feel better.. You can enjoy pirates of the Caribbean, doesn’t mean that’s what pirates looked like
"Shogun" (2024) proofs, you`re right. (OK, ignore the "low ready"-Position with the muzzle loaded arquebuses and the western pistols. Everything has its archilles heel.)
One of the most memorable, most historically accurate "viking" movies I've seen is _Outlaw: Gisli's Saga._ But there's a reason, of course, why it's not well known.
I think this is why I enjoyed The Northman so much. Robert Eggers and his team did so much work into making the film as historically accurate as possible, from the costumes to the weapons to the rituals, even the haircuts with the side-shaved man bun nowhere to be seen, and it looks and feels badass! Shows you don't need to make things up to make historical fiction cool.
I know is slightly different but the Beard community has been influenced by this. I like the community and its core goal of helping give men confidence in their look but I'm a little bit over every 3rd guy talking about being a Viking just because he's grown some hair on his face and gone to the gym.
HBO is the only production company I can think of that consistently defies the norm in this respect. All of their historical miniseries tell very compelling stories while giving great attention to accuracy and authenticity, no matter that setting
Art is subjective. Some people care other people don't. For me, it depends on the project . In the case of a viking Wolverine accuracy for me is not the most important because I'm already suspending disbelief. But I still like it. For me it's a case by case situation. I like accuracy in some of my fantasy books but in others I can't care less.
Having been able to make peace with a lack of historical accuracy by looking at historical depictions of ancient Rome, more specifically at the frequent lack of understanding of the true appearance of the past, I wish to offer a slightly different perspective. I adore history, I truly do, and I enjoy authenticity greatly whenever it occurs but at the same time, I don't want to rob others or myself of the joy of experiencing a good story by comparing it to reality. It is, sometimes even fortunately, almost a tradition for many, many artists of the past to misinterpret history, revealing much about themselves and their world in the process. Would I prefer a more educated contemporary public who could appreciate, perhaps even demand a far more accurate depiction? Of course. Yet the things I would equate to historically inspired theatre, be it the wildly inaccurate depictions of tactics in times of conflict or the ignorance regarding costumes and customs mustn't distract us from the true core of a work. The true memory of the past is being kept alive by the many people who, like myself, have fallen in love with the entire subject and while I think it is immensely important that we don't forget, sometimes one must be stoic and just accept reality for what it is - meaning that most people are clueless about this aspect of our world and likely will be until they too become part of a slowly vanishing age.
I think it's also important from a writing standpoint. Stories usually tend to have the goal of immersing the viewer into the world the writer presents and when a production is filled with cliche and Hollywood tropes in both the writing itself and setting (That being costume work, location and even down to the way they speak) it usually pulls people out of that sense of immersion. Now of course for those who don't really care about costume work, it's not that big of a deal since as stated in the video, the portrayal of things in movies warps the public outlook on how things actually are, but to those who know the history, it's not just cringe, it tends to be unwatchable because of how difficult it is to immerse oneself in the setting. Originality points also matter, because seeing the same generic leather on leather banded fur cloaks tends to get really really boring when seen for the 100th time.
Very well said, not every video game, serie or movie needs to be accurate BUT when they don't, they should put a caption saying is loosely based on historical events.
I would prefer 'loosely _inspired_ by historical events, or a true story' - I'm less likely to lose my sh^t over 'inspired by' than I am someone saying 'based on historical events/ a true story'- & then taking said story off a cliff...
Historical authentic is better if you are making a fictional story set during a certain time period. Call of duty world at war is a perfect example of this.
I loved The Northman and how much effort they went to in reproducing not only accurate costumes but also mindset. What upset me was how much shit it got for not looking cool enough and being 'difficult to understand.'
Thank you for making this video, it's a really important topic. It's a shame to see much cooler elements from real history getting discarded in favor of generic fake history props and notions.
Crazy how The Witcher with it's magic and 8ft tall vampire Lords had way more accuracy with the Skelligers than there was with the show called Vikings that was produced by the History Channel...
I feel like it depends on if you are actually going for historical accuracy or not. The documentary argument only works for me when people want 100% historical accuracy. You can make historical accuracy entertaining. But you can also have fun with it. It just depends on the vision of the person.
Honestly, I don't even need accuracy. Just give me authenticity. Historical fiction can be absolutely fantastic if everything else is authentic to the period. Just look at Shogun.
While I agree with some of your points, at the end of the day, rule of cool for me personally is more important. If everyone just wore plain old boring chainmail, it'd get "meh" really quick.
@@fashyDad Learn history before making definite assumptions. There is a lot of women tombs found in Europe, especially in scandinavia with swords and shields. Shield maidens are also a thing you know?
@@darkside791 Just because they were buried with swords and shields doesn’t mean they were fighters. It’s just a cultural thing to do or was possibly their lovers
This has always been an issue with other periods of History aswell with armor especially, fantasy loves to just make up their own armor without trying to look at historical reference, which a lot of real armor looks extremely fantasy aswell especially if you look at ceremonial and ornamental armor, like the bird themed suit in Prague which is one beautiful piece that fits right in with fantasy. FromSoft does it best where they look at real armor and then they add their own fantasy to the armor, while a horrible example of fantasy armor is stuff like final fantasy which tries to overcomplicate things. On the topic of the video though, I hate how we can know exactly what a Vikings kit would be, and then even histories own fantasy embellishments since most writings on their appearance are not from any Norsemen themselves. I personally do subscribe to Vikings wearing fur but I've always felt it was probably more like the reason most Knights in the crusades had cloaks, it is both a signifier of status and a tool to use, so my main issue with furs on vikings is how common it is, however the lack of any armor on a people who we have examples of everywhere else around the world, and even looking at the many that traveled to other cultures where we have proof of their appearance like the Varangian Guard in the Byzantines, the Kievan Rus, even the Normans which practically define how most think that period looked like. Why are the norse cultures always in leathers are other waste of material, part of why axes and other forms of spear were so common for them was because it was material efficient rather than making a sword, I think this rather comes down to people thinking vikings were mindless brutes on top of their so poor they need to raid stigma, which both we know was false there is an argument for them being poor but they were not material poor especially when this was a people who buried their dead with their weapons. I think the other part is most people seem to underestimate just how much layered fabrics protect you against blades weapons, more so than leather, for leather to be effective it has to be cured to the point of being nearly rigid so its not even a good fantasy trope for maneuverable armor vs metal once you know how well you can move in metal aswell. Another topic of the video was hair, and I definitely 100% agree that is 0 sarcasm, this is a people who we know groomed their hair well and took good care of it even more so than other surrounding cultures. Braids may have been common but shaving their hair to baldness just to tattoo the surface is probably the least possible thing I would perceive from them after studying a lot about the overall time period, it seems uncharacteristic of what I know about history and it does look cool sometimes but its so common it doesnt feel right ever, especially intentionally dirtying the hair aswell. The argument these things are made for entertainment and not history, yeah thats true... but also people who just consume the History channel don't understand that they know nothing about anything they ever talk about or produce, its called the HISTORY CHANNEL so most people are going to expect some degree of real history in what they make, which just makes the influence the TV show Vikings had because the expectation is "The History Channel must know what they are talking about, its in their name" which on top of its popularity only further added to the false narrative of viking history. I will always prefer media, even if its pure fantasy, that takes heavy inspiration from real history, even if they don't end up using accurate arms and armor, simply knowing how things evolved and functioned creates a much stronger foundation because now the writer can understand why things worked out how they did, and a well thought out fantasy is almost always the best kind. Sorry for the long message this video entered my recommended and it is about something I hate seeing on the topic I am most passionate about, so I felt like just spewing passionate words off the top of my head. Plus hey video engagement.
Ok, yes-- your culture should definitely have historical representation. And I also still think these romanticized Vikings are cool as hell. We need our own fantasy term for this genre haha I dig the furs, tattoos, and muscles
I still find it funny that a Japanese guy did a better job of being historically accurate with their Viking manga than Hollywood ever could. Seriously, check the Vinland saga; it is pretty good.
Fun fact: Carl Doepler, professor of costume design with a reputation for historical accuracy, was the one who put the winged and horned helmets on the costumes of Wagners' Ring Cycle. The need for historic accuracy was the origin of the tragically inaccurate horned viking helmet trope. Wagner himself actually sought a new kind of emblematic, abstract costume design that would complement his revolutionary music dramas. Source: "Wagner and the Trope of the Horned Helmet" Jim Gritton, University of Greenwich.
I always found that trend of characters in historical setting having hipster sidecuts in TV shows and movies from 2010s weird. And while it's bad in a show like Vikings,I'd argue it looks even more unrealistic in Peaky Blinders,seeing as we actually have photos and videos from that era that show how people actually looked like back then. However,I guess that trend of projecting contemporary fashion trends on period piece shows and movies isn't really new,I remember many ancient Greeks in the 90s Hercules and Xena shows having goatees,which I doubt they would really have.
What I hate even more about historical movies as that apparently before the 20th century the sun didn't exist, everything is overcast all the time, and people never wore anything colourful. Like damn, bring some fun into the movie, the middle ages had some crazy fashion choices.
hollywood make the excuse that reality is boring so they have to spice it up and make it look good. hollywood also think people are superficial with really low IQ so they use clichés because they believe that it's what people want their movies to look like
I agree on all points. I reenact the American colonial period between the French and Indian War (known as The Seven Years War in Europe) up the the American Revolution, so I understand the need for historical accuracy.
I am really happy I found this video. Usually series like Vikings not only have inaccuracies in clothing and costumes, it sometimes contains vast tweakings and alterations to events that make those said events have little to no resemblance in historical accuracy. Show writers do this to either send a political message or to address a minor plot point that will never get mentioned in other episodes ever again. This pisses me the hell off like dude you could have written a better and more captivating story IF you had actually stuck to the source material, what the hell was the point of such dramtic unnecessary changes that waste characters and ruin story lines??? One of the best examples of this is, in Vikings, Ivar kills Sigurd out of anger and Sigurd's story ends there while in reality Sigurd went on to be the king of denmark and a legendary ancestor to many great Danish kings.
If news channels and politics of USA cannot even get geography right then what do we expect from streaming platforms which are known for random quality of content.
If you look closer they had Falcata swords in the "Logan" fan made short movie... Falcatas 🤦♂️🤦♀️🤦 witch I'm sure you know were around 2300 years ago 😂😂😂 not in the Dark Ages... I commented this on their clip for the makers to read but they haven't responded... in fact I haven't even received one single like on that comment 🤣🤣🤣 BTW Great video bro ! I fully agree with everything you said 💪💪💪👍👍👍⚔️⚔️⚔️ Keep up the good work !
In reallyyyyy low budget films/series I can kinda look past this a little bit as you can see they have made effort with regards to production value but they have their hands tied in many areas. It's the stuff with budget that has no excuse and makes my blood boil! But yeah even though I look on the low budget passion projects with more kindness and understanding... It does still irk me.
@@CoffeeFiend1 well yeah bro but... The Iberian Flacatas... that were used in antiquity 2300 years ago 😂😂😂 it would have been enough to google "viking sword" and they would have done it right 🙂
@@alinvid6098 My point was that they need a prop and their budget is limited. It's semi-excusable on a very low budget piece but inexcusable for a professional film or series. Assassins Creed has been utterly ridiculous seen the Origins reboot. By design the franchise gets some scope for liberties because it's about alternate history that has been distorted. But this only goes so far, the original games kept it largely grounded in reality. We'll never get a return to true form unfortunately.
@@CoffeeFiend1 I understand your point but why didn't they google how viking swords actually looked like and tried to do props like that for the LOGAN fan film ?
I'm really glad that you spoke about music as well as clothing. So many of the so called "viking" instruments were actually invented long after 1066. Take the tagelharpa, for example. The earliest known usage of this instrument dates back to the 14th century and evidence suggests that it was not only invented by christians but also largely inspired by earlier bowed instruments that were introduced to Northern Europe by muslim travellers. And as you mentioned the band Wardruna, I would like to point out that they are themselves fully aware of all of this and Einar Selvik has very openly said in interviews that he completely rejects the whole Viking label that him and his music have been branded with. Great video, my friend.
Totally agreed! Historical accuracy (or at least historical logic (by historical logic i mean logic behind development of certain groups, like you won't wear arabic desert clothes at the middle of northern cold lands etc)) in material culture and weapons is much more cool and beautiful than "artistic" cringe. Remember the LotR movies. This is fantasy world with pretty much historical clothes and weapons with unique fleur of their cultures. And everyone liked it. I live by the motto - if it's practical and\or historical it's more likely to be cool, nice and beautiful. Make your research, don't draw, write or make cringe dear painters, writers and cosplay artisans, the results will shock you
For those who said something cannot try to be historicaly accurate and being entertainment at the same time, I have two words for you: Vinland Saga. Yes, an anime with a giant warrior killing a horse with a single punch is more historicaly accurate than a TV show produced by History Channel.
I am totally with you here, they should not allow entertainment about history to be historical inaccurate, because people are too stupid to tell the difference between fan fiction and historical accuracy. Nothing coming out of the US about the Romans, Viking, Greeks or Celts has been historically accurate and it is really pissing me off!
This is definitely a trend I've noticed a lot throughout the years, and it's been exponentially bugging me the more I learn about real history. Historical fiction is a genre I've always liked and I can enjoy historically inaccurate media just fine if it's good (Apocalypto comes to mind), and I've never had a problem separating what I see on screen with real history; but I still prefer seeing something closer to reality. Animation's a bit of a different beast, since animators tend to prefer having as much creative liberties as possible. IPs like HTTYD aren't at all historically accurate (characters are vikings in name only), but they're also not supposed to be since the focus is really on the fantasy aspect and the worldbuilding isn't grounded in realism or history, but entirely its own thing. Animated fairy tales a la Disney (and occasionally others) could arguably fall into this category. ->DreamWorks' Sinbad isn't historically accurate by any means, but it draws some obvious inspiration from some Mediterranean cultures; despite what people may think, there's nothing to suggest Sinbad isn't still Arab-people erroneously assume that just because someone's lightskin, he _must_ be European, or are confused by the setting being Greek even though people in those cultures could've interacted via sailing-he still even dresses vaguely Arab compared to the Greek city-state of Syracuse, which may or may not have been the vassal state of a caliphate (the movie doesn't specify, but some fans theorize). ->Anime is also another point of contention. I outright avoid European-inspired high fantasy because it all looks the same to me: boring and uninspired. Vinland Saga is quite popular, but I have a hard time getting into it because I know they don't get a lot of things right and the fighting is totally unrealistic. It's supposed to be a more grounded story, but the wacky combat and silly modern haircuts just take me out of it. Without a doubt, the Japanese are better at portraying their own history and making fiction inspired by it. All right, rant over, lol. There's _absolutely_ a niche for history enthusiasts in video games, shows, and movies. In fact, the closer something sticks to the source, the more interest I gain in checking it out. This is actually why KCD and the Northman caught my attention to begin with, and they both turned out to be two of my favorite pieces of media.
I recently visited the battle sight of Stamford Bridge in England & asked a Saxon Ghost for authenticity, he showed be 10,000 Viking corpses, so i was delighted on both counts 😀
I thought the Vikings show by history channel was tolerable until we got into season 6. Before that the show certainly want accurate but the feeling at least felt somewhat authentic to the period and the acting was pretty great. That was until Ivar ran off to Russia after losing to Bjorn only to ally himself with the Kievan Rus ( a state that wouldn’t exist for another hundred years) who also seemingly have literal mongols fighting for them. They then invade Scandinavia on literal D-Day landing crafts made out of wood and proceed to lose again. Ivar then dies without founding Dublin. This isn’t just historical exaggeration or playing with a setting, it’s literally creating an entirely ahistorical plot with no basis in reality and presenting it as reality. The only shows and movies I’ve seen portray this period in at least a somewhat accurate manner have been The Northman and Vinland Saga, the latter of which is literally a Japanese anime. Both are pretty beloved and even though they aren’t perfectly accurate they’re leagues above the drivel currently being pushed by Hollywood.
I'm glad someone said this! Seeing something that you know is out of place puts me off when watching anything. I also get fed up of the "it's not a documentary" "argument". There are so many stories in history that if you did everything as accurately as possible they would be better because it humanises the characters in the stories.
