The Eagle/The Eagle of the Ninth

[Anonymous]

Just to say that the UK release date of the film won't be until the 18th of March:twisted:

And did you know that the title was changed to avoid members of the public mistaking it for a golfing movie? I kid you not!

[ParthianBow]

Whoah! How did that happen - the above post was from me - surprised that I was being allowed to post without logging in, I continued, expecting to be prompted to log in before it went live on the forum. But it never happened.

Jasper! *jumps up and down* Jasper! Is this meant to happen?

[Vindex]

You're joking of course...hock:

I hear that M M Scott is writing Eagle of the Twelfth...

What happens if we do a Nineteenth? Will that become Eagle of the Club House?:wink:

[Vincula]

My favorite blog has this: http://antoninuspius.blogspot.com/

[Luca]

I wonder about so few posts about this movie?

http://www.focusfeatures.com/the_eagle

Probably is there another topic running elsewhere in the forum?

[Nathan Ross]

Probably is there another topic running elsewhere in the forum?

It has been discussed elsewhere, although only in conjunction with other films (Centurion etc).

It could be a good film, largely because it's based on a good source (ie the original novel), which means it could escape being the usual morass of shouting and running about.

From the video clips above it appears to feature scythed chariots (which may have been in the novel...), curious upside down flying fighting (in slow motion :lol: ) and some very hokey gladiatorial gear!

The 'military and technical advisor' for the film is Paul Hornsby, who actually appears to be a stuntman by profession, and was previously 'senior military advisor' for The Last Legion and Narnia: Prince Caspian. :-?

Meanwhile, Channing Tatum's breathy voiceover at the start of the trailer seems to echo Elias Koteas' similar soliloquy in The Thin Red Line. :roll:

- Nathan

[Narukami]

You wonder why their "military & technical advisor" did not point out the error of the bracers. It is almost as if all Hollywood films set in ancient Rome requires the Romans wear these.

Of course, given the other films this gentleman has worked on and the quality of their costumes, one should not be too surprised.

I am impressed that at least the centurions are wearing their swords on the correct side.

Today the LA Times ran an article about the work done on The Eagle using Gaelic. This same linguistic strategy was employed on the film Centurion. So, once again one must wonder why on both these films the Romans wear bracers. If they are going to such effort in terms of language, getting this minor bit of costuming correct would take no effort at all.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/new...0783.story

I know, I know ... Just keep repeating, "It's only a movie, it's only a movie ..."

:-?

Narukami

[Nathan Ross]

So, once again one must wonder why on both these films the Romans wear bracers. If they are going to such effort in terms of language, getting this minor bit of costuming correct would take no effort at all.

Hmm, maddening, isn't it? mile:

I suppose with the language question, there's less leeway - the actors are either speaking Gaelic or aren't, and if the filmmakers are going to actually hire a genuine language tutor rather than just making up their own garbled 'language', it's got to be right. (questions of quite how likely 2nd C AD Caledonians are to be speaking Gaelic anyway notwithstanding, of course!).

With costuming, however, there's more room for 'interpretation', and if the art director and costume department want to look like they're earning their dollars, being creative and putting themselves in the line of some shiny prizes for their craft, they can't just get a couple of Osprey books or spend 25 minutes on the internet finding out what things really looked like...

It always amazes me how little recycling there seems to be in these movies - those helmets in 'Eagle', for instance, look to me different to the ones used in 'Centurion', and different again to those horrible little tinpot things in HBO's 'Rome'. So somebody is actually employed to make all this stuff, from scratch, for every new production! They could just as easily make them look right, but 'ancient' costuming falls between three indices - a/what the general public thinks that (say) Roman soldiers looked like, b/some consideration of 'authenticity' (to give them a fig-leaf claim to historicity), and c/whatever the costume department thinks looks 'interesting' and fitting with their vision of the film. Bracers look 'masculine' and 'ancient', leather connotes 'Rome', dark gloomy fabrics fit with gloomy blue-tinted photography and windswept moors and swelling wailing soundtracks and whirling helicopter shots of mountains... so that's what we end up with.

All of which sounds very negative and carping and so on, and really these things are fairly minor irritants (unlike, say, the egregious ropiness of 'Centurion's plot!) - but it would nevertheless be quite nice one day to see someone allow history to be history rather than just a projection of their own artistic vision!

- Nathan

[jkaler48]

Sometimes Hollywood and the (so called) history channel productions hire qualified advisors
and then COMPLETELY ignore them. It makes the advisors NOT want their name associated with the production. So beware if offered an advisory position ensure that your reputation won't be damaged by have the option to be left off the advertising in your contract.
Also cost MAY be a factor in some equipment decisions. Plastic/simulated leather is cheaper than real metal. It is easier to make plastic look like tarnished metal than shiny. So the dark grungy look might be a matter of economics as well as an "Artistic" statement.

[Matthew Amt]

Also cost MAY be a factor in some equipment decisions. Plastic/simulated leather is cheaper than real metal. It is easier to make plastic look like tarnished metal than shiny. So the dark grungy look might be a matter of economics as well as an "Artistic" statement.

Pfff. You can get metallic spraypaints at Home Depot, and I'd be surprised if Hollywood didn't have access to even better things. They go to great length and expense to add "grunge" where it isn't needed. Heck, they go to great expense to add bracers to every male forearm! They deliberately and expensively darken the whole film with filters and CG.

On the one hand they say they HAVE to do certain things "Because that's what the audience expects." (No surprise, it's all they've seen in films for 40 years...) On the other hand they want to SHOCK the audience--with what, the same old sex, gasoline explosions, heads chopped off with shields, and gray/black/brown armor?

Mind you, I wouldn't really care at all about the hardware and overall look if it's got a good story, good script, good acting, and good directing. And as little "jerky-cam" as possible! But I just haven't seen much like that (on ancient subjects) since "I, Claudius". So I will spare myself the pain and not bother watching this movie.

Enjoy the show!

Matthew

[Narukami]

Mind you, I wouldn't really care at all about the hardware and overall look if it's got a good story, good script, good acting, and good directing. And as little "jerky-cam" as possible! But I just haven't seen much like that (on ancient subjects) since "I, Claudius".
Matthew

Indeed. The armor in I, Claudius is pretty much standard Hollywood Roman, however the story and the acting are so engaging that we over look these points in favor of the quality evident elswhere in the production.

Yes, budget is always a factor in Hollywood, even when then spend money like it isn't. Adding bracers to every Roman forearm in sight has more to de with what "we think" Romans looked like as opposed to what research shows us. Even though re-enactors were involved in the film Centurion, they suffered "bracer contamination" as well.

Of course, it is a dangerous sport to judge a film by its trailers and perhaps even more insane to compare films to the books they are based on (Kurt Vonnegut not withstanding) however ...

Based upon the PR hype being put out by Focus Features for The Eagle it seems clear why the director changed the name from Eagle Of The Ninth to just The Eagle. Beyond the main out line of the story, the film and the book may bear little resemblence to each other. Perhaps I'm wrong, and the film does look like it will be exciting (certainly my grandson, who saw the trailer at a showing of Tron Legacy, thinks so) but that said, I have my doubts.

Full review at AW on line next week.

:wink:

Narukami

[john roberts]

How come, with the huge extent of the Roman Empire and the multitude of nations on its borders, does everything always happen in Scotland?

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

Personally I would love to see a film set during the Punic Wars that doesn't center on Hannibal...

I think it would be amazing to see a big budget film about Romes early history, before the civil wars that led to the Principate.

Come on, triarii, elephants, siege warfare. How awesome would that be? Set in Spain or North Africa?

[Gaius Colletti]

How come, with the huge extent of the Roman Empire and the multitude of nations on its borders, does everything always happen in Scotland?

Seriously, with all the movies, mini series, and tv shows, you would assume the Roman Empire only existed in Rome, around Hadrian's wall, and occassionally in Holy Land!

[Gaius Colletti]

Personally I would love to see a film set during the Punic Wars that doesn't center on Hannibal...

Do you really think they could make a (profitable) movie without Hannibal and Scipio? That would be like a movie with Robin Hood, but no Sheriff or King John. Or Tom and Jerry without Jerry!