Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

The 13th Warrior thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The 13th Warrior thread

    Having had the misfortune to watch abovesaid film on the BBC I really must draw attention to it's pretensions. Obviously Beowulf kitted out in some pastiche of what, from a GB point of view, can only be called 'Myth as history' type of film. It sucks as much as Auntie Beeb. Grendel. I suspect some Scandinavians of the present day are making the erroneous assumption that whatever their society is now then it must have been so in the past.

    Haha, the reality behind Beowulf has been domne a disservice by those elemnets in society that make the kind of film that King Arthur is. I advise you not to go and watch it because it assumes as the last film assumes the supremacy of the Vikings or even Mohammedans when they are as much myths as Artorios Rex.

    Beowulf, the original skalds poem was done a mischief when these "@*&faces thought they could use 'creative' visualisation when it comes to something that is fundamentally at the heart of this nations psyche. Woe betide them. Odin Allfather shall hunt them down as the Wild Hunt courses through the skies.

    Damn their eyes!
    \'You know my destiny?\' said Elric eagerly. \'Tell me what it is, Niun Who Knew All.\'
    Niun opened his mouth as if to speak but then firmly shut it again. \'No,\' he said. \'I have forgotten.\'

  • #2
    Re: The 13th Warrior thread

    Originally posted by Darren
    Having had the misfortune to watch abovesaid film on the BBC I really must draw attention to it's pretensions. Obviously Beowulf kitted out in some pastiche of what, from a GB point of view, can only be called 'Myth as history' type of film. It sucks as much as Auntie Beeb. Grendel. I suspect some Scandinavians of the present day are making the erroneous assumption that whatever their society is now then it must have been so in the past.
    Not entirely so.. Many scands (including myself) see the distinction of what is myth and what is history. Myth is full of symbology and is ment to drive the individual story towards transformation. Romantic visions of the past of 'society then/society now' has no place in a society that is everchanging. These fabrications are the result of mythic ideals of the present belonging to 'Hollywood' to drive people to theatres and nothing else.

    Originally posted by Darren
    Haha, the reality behind Beowulf has been domne a disservice by those elemnets in society that make the kind of film that King Arthur is. I advise you not to go and watch it because it assumes as the last film assumes the supremacy of the Vikings or even Mohammedans when they are as much myths as Artorios Rex.
    Vikings where (as you know) not supreme. Those are ideals of the past
    which Hollywood tries to cash from now after LOTR and other romantic/epic movies which have come to the theatres. I see only exploitation.
    To move this question further... It is not scandinavians or germans who are making these movies (or even english). There are really good movies that where made in Iceland about Vikings:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087432/
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095346/
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102081/

    These have a real story feel which are true to what was written in the past. I advise you to seek them out..

    Originally posted by Darren
    Beowulf, the original skalds poem was done a mischief when these "@*&faces thought they could use 'creative' visualisation when it comes to something that is fundamentally at the heart of this nations psyche. Woe betide them. Odin Allfather shall hunt them down as the Wild Hunt courses through the skies.

    Damn their eyes!
    I always get a thorn in my eye when hollywood tries something like this.
    It has no real understanding of the subject at hand. I think Mel Gibson did a real disservice to historic warrior imagery in cinema. Because it evaded the historical traps by inventing its own history of BS.
    It was even more myth than myth i think. Rather lies in that proportion!
    'King Arthur' had the idea of making myth into historical reality which is
    an uneeded task. And an idea made in hollywood to cash in on phrases like= "'The' Real story of Arthur". Which really has no point!

    I have not seen Arthur yet.. but i will see it downloaded! heheheh!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The 13th Warrior thread

      Originally posted by Darren
      Having had the misfortune to watch abovesaid film on the BBC I really must draw attention to it's pretensions. Obviously Beowulf kitted out in some pastiche of what, from a GB point of view, can only be called 'Myth as history' type of film. It sucks as much as Auntie Beeb.
      Umm, assuming that we're both referring to the same thing* - The 13th Warrior, directed by John McTiernan, starring Antonio Banderas and broadcast on UK TV on Friday 23rd July - then maybe I should point out that it was actually broadcast on ITV1 and *not* the BBC as you state. (That it was littered with commercial breaks might have alerted you to that.)

      In any case, regardless of who broadcast it that's all they were doing; they're the messenger rather than the author of the film, which as Theocrat points out was actually Hollywood (or more specifically Touchstone Pictures). Since the film is based on a novel/idea by Michael Crichton perhaps the blame for any inaccuracies/pretensions in the film ought to be placed at his door rather than Auntie's. :)

      (I'm not defending the film btw, so the rest of your criticisms are probably correct. I meant to watch it on Friday but as it happens, I started watching Deep Rising on BBC1 beforehand and got engrossed in that instead. :oops: )

      Cheers,
      David

      *If by some chance (like in a parallel universe for instance) The 13th Warrior *was* recently screened by the BBC then ignore that first paragraph. I think the 2nd one still stands though.
      _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
      _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
      _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
      _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

      Comment


      • #4
        Haha, the reality behind Beowulf has been domne a disservice by those elemnets in society that make the kind of film that King Arthur is. I advise you not to go and watch it because it assumes as the last film assumes the supremacy of the Vikings or even Mohammedans when they are as much myths as Artorios Rex.
        Yes, I suppose some people have a tendency the think the Vikings and Muslims were perefect (of course this isn't true). Now, I personaly do not have any problem with people making movies that are heavily influenced by the culture and virtues of the Vikings (such as The Lord of the Rings). As for the movie King Arthur, I do not plan to see it.

        I think Mel Gibson did a real disservice to historic warrior imagery in cinema.
        Are you talking about BraveHeart? Grant it is not 100% accurant but I still like it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Cannibals

          Wasn't there some underground blood cult in that film? Years ago, I quite enjoyed the film because it was darker than I expected.

          Comment


          • #6
            I would like to add that anyone who has seen 'The 13th Warrior', and liked it, should read the Michael Crichton novel it was based on - 'Eaters of the Dead'. Even if you didn't like the movie, the book is a worthwhile read.

            Now, I'm not a big Crichton fan, and to be honest the only other work of his that I started and finished is 'Rising Sun'. This was also made into a movie and only roughly based on the novel. Still, I liked the movie as well.

            Crichton's whole idea of writing 'Eaters of the Dead', was to present it as a translation of an actual account that occurred in the 10th century, and was "documented" by Ibn Fadlan, an Arab courtier who finds himself joining in an adventure with a band of Vikings. The document obviously parallels the story of 'Beowulf'.

            Now, you can look at this in two different ways. Crichton was either brilliant or lazy. Brilliant, because he took an epic and presented the story as "fact" based upon a lost "document" that states the "true" basis for 'Beowulf'. Or, you can just say Crichton was lazy and did a "what if" story based on 'Beowulf'; the bulk of the novel already there, just flesh it out a little, and BANG, another masterpiece!

            Personally, when I read a novel and then see the movie (or vice-versa) I go in with different expectations. If one is loyal to the other, then great! If not, well no big let down (except maybe in the pocketbook). By now, I've come to anticipate the Hollywood spin on things. Sometimes we sit back after the movie and say, "WOW". Other times not, but I paid good money and I'll sit here until the credits are done if I want.

            Anyway, in my opinion, if I want historical accuracy I will go see a historical documentary film. Or, watch the History Channel or another channel like it. When I go see a "historically" based movie, I go in with an open mind. I find I enjoy it more if I just take it as action/adventure. If the facts are somewhat or more correct, then all the better!

            Just my humble opinion. Thank you. :)


            TL

            Comment


            • #7
              :oop:

              Maybe it wasn't on the bbc (they don't deserve Capitals with their revisionist nostalgic output) and I'm delighted to be set straight on something you guys have obviously thought about. I probably subliminally registered Crichton's name but perhaps I have developed a sense of his monopolising cinema. He seems to write books that go straight to screen. He must have a friend in the industry.

              Given that it is not the bbc, and is a michael crichton book called eaters of the dead I'd have been less harsh if it emphasised it's fantastic element. It came across as anthropology that wasn't 'connected' to a larger world. Enclosed, I mean in it's own milieu that unless it's done well will seem contrived. Which is what it was, though to have done justice to the little that is known about Beowulf, as it was indubitably homaging.

              Troglodyte Bear people with an mesoAmerind cast to their features. It could be he didn't know then, as we all, I suspect, didn't that there was a tribe of spooky people called the Moche which would have better linked up with his 10th century setting in America and the Vikings. Then made it into a kind of Deliverance at the close of the Viking era and the rise of the Normans and bleeding Plantagenets. But how would he have gotten an Arab into the plot. Piri Reis GGGGGrandfather? The Tartars I liked. But we didn't see much of them and, oddly thay reminded me of Ovid being harassed in Exile. But that was the 1st Century, not the 10th.

              In all I would have liked the director and the writer to have been less driven by the 'Studio System' so they could make the fantasy film it could have become. Not Conan, but that which doesn't baulk at the evocative and doesn't employ musclebrained Austrians that don't even look Cimmerian, short, stout, paleskinned, blue-eyed at least as Howard intended.

              He looks 'barbarian-ish, get him, or her, in front of the camera' kind of school of fantasy film making, when the only people having the fun is the film crew. Sommers has changed the way that fantasy can be done as much as Jackson, so what are we waiting for?

              Where's this movie mr M? Why's it not out yet?



              good things come to those who wait...
              \'You know my destiny?\' said Elric eagerly. \'Tell me what it is, Niun Who Knew All.\'
              Niun opened his mouth as if to speak but then firmly shut it again. \'No,\' he said. \'I have forgotten.\'

              Comment


              • #8
                Having worked in the book trade, I can say that if it's Michael Crichton, John Grisham, Tom Clancy, and others with a devoted hardcore fanbase - It's going to be an automatic bestseller.

                In fact, new releases from above mentioned authors always have a strict publisher onsale date. On that date when the book is available, it almost always has an out-of-box discount already. At least with the chain stores. So if a store sells bestselling hardcovers at 30% off, they often are already priced that way from the release date. The following week, it's on the bestseller shelf.

                Crichton and Grisham seem to have an automatic movie offer before the book hits the store. Actually, before the book hits the publisher. I don't know all the details on this one. MM could explain this process much better. :)

                So, just a few tidbits you may have known already, maybe didn't know, or maybe didn't really care to know. :lol:

                Thanks for your indulgence.

                TL

                Comment

                Working...
                X