-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Stupid Fantasy Armors
- Thread starter Aldarion
- Start date
Most of the stupid associated with those armor types has more to do with how the camera sees the actor. Sure it's not historically accurate, but that ain't why we go to the movies. Or, increasingly, why we bring the movies to us.
The unfortunate consequence, to which that article provides a corrective, is that many folks come away from movies that pretend to be historical (looking at you, Braveheart) thinking that the armor they've seen is historical because the movie advertised itself as historical. Over thirty years of teaching has taught me this: education is but a weak force against the power of preconception. Or, as the poet sayeth: still a man hears what he wants to year and disregards the rest.
I wonder if automobile gearheads go after the Mad Max movies. <grin>
The unfortunate consequence, to which that article provides a corrective, is that many folks come away from movies that pretend to be historical (looking at you, Braveheart) thinking that the armor they've seen is historical because the movie advertised itself as historical. Over thirty years of teaching has taught me this: education is but a weak force against the power of preconception. Or, as the poet sayeth: still a man hears what he wants to year and disregards the rest.
I wonder if automobile gearheads go after the Mad Max movies. <grin>
- Thread starter
- #3
Aldarion
Archmage
Probably.
Agreed. But in this case, I really see no reason for why armors would be misrepresented. I get using plate armor in Lord of the Rings, as mail is too difficult to make while plastic plate can be simply cast into the mold... but many of the issues I noted in the article are wholy unnecessary, especially in the video games.
Ah. I think the medium matters here. It is not much of an issue in books. In movies I would argue it's more about the camera. For video games, I'd say it's still mainly form over function, as the goal of most games is to look cool.
I would also draw a big line at what the game/book/show is claiming. If it's claiming historicity--which can range anywhere from heavily researched and accurate to "inspired by"--then the work lays itself open to criticism on historical grounds. If it's just claiming to be fun, mere entertainment, then it doesn't have to be realistic and can even be fantastical. We know it's make-believe, so let's see how far we can go.
All that having been said, there's considerable ground occupied by works--games and shows especially--that just make armor without making it clear whether or not they are trying for something. Are they operating from deliberate choice or are they just being lazy and working from unexamined stereotypes? Those deserve criticism as well.
Where articles like yours are really useful, imo, is that they provide solid information for the viewer/reader/player who is curious about "ring mail" and the like, and want to know more. Then they can find out what sorts of things can be found in human experience and which are pure artistic invention. Or just plain sloppiness.
I would also draw a big line at what the game/book/show is claiming. If it's claiming historicity--which can range anywhere from heavily researched and accurate to "inspired by"--then the work lays itself open to criticism on historical grounds. If it's just claiming to be fun, mere entertainment, then it doesn't have to be realistic and can even be fantastical. We know it's make-believe, so let's see how far we can go.
All that having been said, there's considerable ground occupied by works--games and shows especially--that just make armor without making it clear whether or not they are trying for something. Are they operating from deliberate choice or are they just being lazy and working from unexamined stereotypes? Those deserve criticism as well.
Where articles like yours are really useful, imo, is that they provide solid information for the viewer/reader/player who is curious about "ring mail" and the like, and want to know more. Then they can find out what sorts of things can be found in human experience and which are pure artistic invention. Or just plain sloppiness.
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
Gun people sure go after Westerns, heh heh. Dances With Wolves, Costner is running around with a Henry Rifle shooting when it is clearly empty. Of course, the other day, a rifle made a shotgun slide-action noise... that made me laugh. SO! I have no doubt car people go after movies.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Cause accuracy is not the goal. Creating the right look and feel is. In vid games its all about looking sexy or cool.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Incidentally, i see your example for ring mail is that used on the show, vikings. Having just finished the series, i can attest the ring mail did not help them at all. Not a single blow was stopped by armor in six full seasons. I wondered why even wear it.
- Thread starter
- #9
Aldarion
Archmage
It often is, actually, because quite a few authors take their inspiration from visual media. George Martin for example makes quite a few mistakes, some of which appear to have come from Dungeons and Dragons, and others from visual media.
I do believe however that fantastical elements should be "realistic" in sense that they should make sense in-universe. For example, Tolkien's mithril mail is realistic in that it actually follows how mail may have functioned with an ultra-strong material. Witch King's flail in movies is not realistic because at that size it should have swung the Witch King around, not the opposite (and now I have image of Witch King smacking Eowyn into face).
Agreed.
Prince of Spires
Auror
Wait! Bikini armour is not historically accurate?
Fans of Red Sonja will be crushed. Then again, as originally envisioned, her armor was typical enough...
Finchbearer
Istar
I love, love how you’ve pointed out that with bikini armour the midriff isn’t protected. I mean not to mock, but clearly bikini armour or even man boob armour can’t really be dispelled in an article about accuracy in fantasy armoury. There’s a lot more going on with the reasoning for those types of armour and it’s all to do with sex and nothing really to do with protection. Although an armoured bikini might offer some protection from some things…
That in itself is an entirely separate topic in that I am sure there have been dissertation and thesis’ written about the male gaze in fantasy gaming. Why bikini armour and not whole body armour? The game developer obviously wanted a sexy female running around fighting and such, and couldn’t exactly make them totally naked, so a bikini sufficed.
The man boob thing, didn’t the Romans have plated armour that depicted abdominal muscles?
The doughnut armour example you showed, in the example you provided, isn’t he wearing armour underneath his heraldry tunic thing?
That in itself is an entirely separate topic in that I am sure there have been dissertation and thesis’ written about the male gaze in fantasy gaming. Why bikini armour and not whole body armour? The game developer obviously wanted a sexy female running around fighting and such, and couldn’t exactly make them totally naked, so a bikini sufficed.
The man boob thing, didn’t the Romans have plated armour that depicted abdominal muscles?
The doughnut armour example you showed, in the example you provided, isn’t he wearing armour underneath his heraldry tunic thing?
Finchbearer
Istar
I would also ask if you’re pointing out historical inaccuracy or suitability? As in there are many examples of historical armour that didn’t work to actually protect the person wearing it, but it doesn’t make it inaccurate.
I might be guilty of the doughnut armor. There's something really distinctive about the pauldrons and gorget, which I sometimes use to identify nation and rank, as kind of separate from the rest of the armor. I'll have to check a few places to see whether the armor underneath is lacking.
Some of it, in the movies, is about having props designers who either don't have the knowledge, or don't have the resources, to do better. I'm still looking at that Peter Pevensie doughnut armor picture. The prop designer is clearly hoping the red surcoat distracts enough from the fact the chain is lacking - and for most people it probably does. I also wonder if it's to do with worries over the actor aging out of a chest piece between set design and filming?
Sometimes, especially when it's just one character, like a movie or book cover. In some video games, though, when there's enough variety in armor styles, it's also about fashion.
Some of it, in the movies, is about having props designers who either don't have the knowledge, or don't have the resources, to do better. I'm still looking at that Peter Pevensie doughnut armor picture. The prop designer is clearly hoping the red surcoat distracts enough from the fact the chain is lacking - and for most people it probably does. I also wonder if it's to do with worries over the actor aging out of a chest piece between set design and filming?
Sometimes, especially when it's just one character, like a movie or book cover. In some video games, though, when there's enough variety in armor styles, it's also about fashion.
Finchbearer
Istar
I have learned some things here. So it’s called pauldrons and gorget?
Pauldrons are on the shoulders. Gorgets are the neckpiece in between them. For simplicity's sake I view them as a set.
There are different names for slightly different pieces in different times and places. But here's a reasonable diagram.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Just sayin...a woman in bikini armor would defeat me every time.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
- Thread starter
- #19
Aldarion
Archmage
Even then however, you can actually shape bikini armor to provide at least some protection to vital areas. Sure, midriff will still be exposed, but at least you get some protection for heart and lungs.
Or you can simply set things in antiquity, which had body-shaped breastplates anyway.
They did, though it was officer-exclusive.
Issue isn't that he isn't wearing armor, issue is that he isn't wearing proper armor.
Doughnut armor isn't just "no protection for the center", it is merely case when extremities receive better protection than the more crucial areas of the body.
So yes, he is wearing mail underneath the tunic. But since he is wearing plate armor on lower arms and legs (vambraces and greaves), that is still an example of doughnut armor.
If you want it to not be an example of doughnut armor, then you need to either get rid of plate limb protection, or else update torso protection to plated armor (be it actual breastplate, lamellar, coat of plates or brigandine).
Historical inaccuracy.
Also, I do not recall a single example of "historical armor that didn't work to actually protect the person wearing it", so might you provide some examples?
Might be. But that can be easily solved by replacing torso plate with lamellar, coat of plates or else brigandine, all of which can be easily "updated" as the wearer grows. Which by the way is likely the reason why states with large state-supplied armies generally preferred such armors over plate variants.
Finchbearer
Istar
It depends on the degree of protection I suppose. Some armour is probably better than none at all. But design wise some of it was probably not that practical. A full suit of armour for one.WWI helmets another, and probably lots more examples that were good in principle, but not on the battlefield. Designs can always be improved upon generally speaking.
