Rome HBO series, last post look at these two pictures

[tlclark]

Woad,

We have all expressed the many inaccuracies in the two kits above, much less so with the one of the left than the one on the right.

The one of the left has a very decent hamata, except he doesn't have the breast hooks. Other than that and his focale being out and having leather vambraces, he's OK. Not egregious errors IMO, the other is less so.

But we've been over all of this before. If you don't want to accept our opinion that's fine, but I'm having a very hard time understanding why you can't accept or understand our objections.

It's beginning to get circular.

Travis

[Caius Fabius]

Artificial Light in movies outside.
Every time I have been involved with a significant film, even in battle scenes, some sort of artificial light was used, either reflectors and banks of lights or spots or all three. The only film I did that didn't have artifical lighting was a filming iof an ACW re-enactment, and although the big scenes didn't have artificial lighting or make-up, everyone looked washed out and dull. The cameo scenes used make-up and artificial lighting.

Each scene is usually shot several times. The out door lighting changes with the angle of the sun, the cloud cover and many other factors. For example, if you saw the film "Gettysburg" look for the scene where Ted Turner is killed at the wooden fence. Those few seconds in the film took forever, and everyone was wearing makeup, and under artificial lighting. After a while you forget how many times the director or AD says the fateful words "Okay, everyone, BACK TO ONE!" And that is only for one scene, which may or may not make it in to the actual release! 15-20 seconds may start shooting at 6 or 7 am and go for two or three days, if the director is a perfectionist, or if key actors flub their lines, or if stunts and gags go wrong, or even if a horse goes to the bathroom at the wrong time....

There are whole University courses about lighting film and theater, indoor and outdoor. I have not seen the actual footage, but I'll bet you that there were plenty of lights behind the camera and to the left of the camera, at about ground to 10 feet above the ground in the two shots I looked at, you can tell from the unnatural shining, even through the make-up and the shadow angles.
8)

[tlclark]

Some more info on color

Go do a Google Image search on these two items:

Villa of the Mysteries and House of the Vetii

Two pompeiian frescoes, 2nd and 4th Style respectively. Bascially any color you see there was available in clothing dye as well.

Travis

[FAVENTIANVS]

What about these re-enactors Francis?
http://www.barbarian-artwork.de.vu/

[Chuck Russell]

are you so sure they are outside? 90% of movies that look outside are made in a sound stage. indoors.

you can not look at those two guys and not see the highlights around the eyes and the cheek bones. if you cant your colorblind. not to be mean but its definitely there. the guy on the rights makeup doesnt even flow well together, he has a green hugh from sweat in the crease from his nose to outer mouth.

why cant you believe us when we say, er its wrong. holiwood usually 98% of the time gives a flying pooh about 100% accurate stuff. if they do use a book to research, its from a source long outdated and proved wrong.

just the guy on the left:

buzzed hair: ? highly doubt an italian had bussed hair. look at the roman coins for the time period, see the emperior? his hair would be the normal style.

cloak: not bad color if it was damp weather etc. but its tied funny with a toggle not a nice broach. it also looks like a cotton weave not wool.

neckercheif: should go under the armour not ever it. was used to keep the armour from pinching the wearers neck.

armour: a hamata at best. the shuolder doubleings need to come over the shoulders a tad more. there shuold be no leather that connects 1 side to the other. there is the missing hamata hooks and the buttons should be on teh doubleings, not under it.

tunic: looks like wrong material. a soilder was paid, and out of what he was paid he was charged for laundries. his tunic is very dirty and tattered.

badric: belt that holds the sword. too wide

baltus: never seen belt plates like that before. should there be a second belt for his pugio? if not shouldnt he have an apron?

gladius: handle is wrong. it is machine lathed.

wrist guards: what the heck, those dont even belong there. why the studs?



shall i go on? the guy on the right's armour is far worse with those stupid doubleings that the guy on the left. you can find both for sale at museum replicas http://www.museumreplicas.com/ a big no no for roman reenactors to buy stuff from there

[Carus Andiae]

from that last picture you posted they added a bit to the armour: http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/ ... rom111.jpg

the shoulder doubleings are wrong, gladius handle wrong, belt plaques wrong, wrist guards wrong, cloak closure wrong, saddle wrong, horse barding bridal and bit wrong. cotton clothing wrong. the neckerchief would go under the hamata, not over it. and im not so sure about a buzz cut being period either

Shouldn't they also be wearing two belts - one each for sword and dagger - in the late Republican period? And although they don't appear in that picture, the shields, helmets and pila were rubbish too.

[Carus Andiae]

doesnt anybody agree with me that there is nothing historically wrong wtih those pics

it hardly looks like it has makeup on them
and nobody even answered my real question, and nobody answered if there is even makeup on those two soldiers

and if there is, is that the only thing that is all ''movie'' look on them?

They are almost certainly wearing makeup (unless there is anyone from the production team on these boards we'll probably never know for sure). One point - the make-up artists wouldn't be very good if the actors looked like they were wearing makeup, would they?

[Tarbicus]

In a nutshell, this site explains the whole makeup thing very well:

[url:1vsx7wdr]http://www.cybercollege.com/makeup.htm[/url]

And here's the premier website for cinematography, including expert contributions from some highly respected DP's in its forum.

[url:1vsx7wdr]http://www.cinematography.com/[/url]

[Woadwarrior]

how is the tunic dirty, how could it get any more clean
i wonder what those two soldiers would look like withough makeup?
what is wrong with the guys ont he lefts hamata?



is this picture accurate?
were the crests of centurios helmets that high?
http://www.museumreplicas.com/webstore/ ... lings.aspx

[tlclark]

Mostly the guy on the left has two features that really scream "wrong" on his hamata

First, his shoulder doublings are based on late hellenistic greek styles. Why they made that bizarre choice I will never know. Aside from that, the rig holding his phalerae is really a fantasy piece and doesn't look anything like a phalerae holder that I know of.

Y'know, with minimal effort, both of these could be made into really good hamata. Why go to the effort to make it wrong? The mind boggles.

Travis

[tlclark]

Mostly the guy on the left has two features that really scream "wrong" on his hamata

First, his shoulder doublings are based on late hellenistic greek styles. Why they made that bizarre choice I will never know. Aside from that, the rig holding his phalerae is really a fantasy piece and doesn't look anything like a phalerae holder that I know of.

Y'know, with minimal effort, both of these could be made into really good hamata. Why go to the effort to make it wrong? The mind boggles.

Travis

[Woadwarrior]

no offense but how could you possibly know that a roman didnt decide to wear that kind of armor, i mean it was 2,000 years ago

so anyway besides the makeup, could a real roman look like the calvary man on the right?
do they put some kind artificial stuff on the armor?

what about civilians? do they put makeup on the hundreds of extras in the city of rome>/??

[Praefectusclassis]

no offense but how could you possibly know that a roman didnt decide to wear that kind of armor, i mean it was 2,000 years ago

Are you really asking for a crash course in Roman military equipment studies?

Your other questions, I believe, have been extensively answered in some of the long posts above, especially about makeup. If you WANT your image of Roman soldiers to be what you saw on Rome, that is fine, but this persistence is beginning to sound like stubbornness. Asking basically the same question over and over again has no point and will only piss people off. If you feel part of your problem has not been addressed, focus on that, explain your problem and ask again. If that's not the case, then I now consider this thread closed.

[tlclark]

no offense but how could you possibly know that a roman didnt decide to wear that kind of armor, i mean it was 2,000 years ago

A fair question. Since I teach for a living, pedagogy and epistemology are a big part of my job.

Basically, we have to ask, what do we know and how do we know it?

Let's take this apart piece by piece and focus on only one of the odd details from the HBO Rome picture, the greek harness.

Can we be certain that no person, living circa 50 BCE couldn't have worn such a harness? No, we can't. We just don't know. The form was known in the 3rd C. BCE so it's possible that they might have worn it, however, the best route in establishing standards is not to base knowledge on what we don't know, but on what we do know.

For example, it's possible Romans had curved scimitars, or Kidon, they were certainly known elsewhere in the E. Mediterranean, so why not?

Well for one thing we never see them in any Roman contexts. We don't see them in Roman art, we don't see them in Roman tombs, we don't see them in the archaeological record. So we would be taking a HUGE risk, a risk bordering on fabrication.

For example, we know the romans had a great deal of mechanical knowledge, so would we be justified in putting a steam powered train in Roman times? We don't know that they didn't so why not? Of course, that would be pretty ridiculous. Now it's true that sometimes re-enactors get over zealous and insist that every piece of armor look exactly like something we dug up from the ground. But there's a load of difference between making something up based on actual finds, and throwing in something from outside the available evidence.

Basically, we don't base knowledge on what we don't know. That's guessing and there's no way to know if you're guessin right or not.

Now, as an aside. You seem pretty intent on committed to believing in this photo, rather than all of us, and not to be rude, it's getting pretty tiresome.

Why the unmitigated faith in this image? Why is it so important for this image to be acceptable? Why can't we be right?

Travis

[Narukami]

WoadWarrior,


All professional armies have numerous regulations governing uniforms and equipment.

Yet in the field troops ignore these rules on a regular basis.

Thus TLC's point is well taken.

Is it possible that a Roman might wear certain items that go against most historical evidence?

Of course it is possible.

The study of World War II uniforms is full of such contradictions, exceptions and one of a kind examples. The advantage for the historian, the film maker and the re-enactor is that we have a wealth of photographic evidence to work with as well as all the original uniform regulations, directives, policies etc.

And yet film makers routinely go beyond the possible into the realm of the absurd when it comes to uniforms in World War II films.

Das Boot or Downfall or Soldier Of Orange or the Longest Day -- right on the money.

Raiders Of The Lost Ark -- an insane mishmash. Some obscure details are correct while other items are completely wrong or obvious fabrications.

To Hell And Back -- well the US uniforms are OK, but the German's...

Even Saving Pvt Ryan had its historical problems. (In this case they got the uniforms correct, but misidentified the German unit engaged in the final battle, even though it was correct in the screenplay.)

With Ancient Rome the problems of authenticity are greater still.

There is much evidence to be sure, but as any member here can tell you, what was "known" ten or twenty years ago has been revised several times based on new artifacts found, and new studies conducted.

TLC makes a cogent point -- we can speculate on all manner of what if possibilities for what the Romans might have worn, but why do that?

A lot of hard work went into the costumes used in HBO's Rome so why get it wrong when the same amount of hard work could have gotten it right?

Why display a 10% possibility when you could dress your actors in a 90% probability?

And just for the record, I watched all of the Rome episodes and enjoyed them. Did some of the details drive me crazy? Sure, but I still had fun.

The same holds true for "I Claudius." I have a copy on laser disc and watch it now and again as the mood strikes me. Is the armor correct? Not at all, but I still enjoy it more than any other show or film about Rome.

Perhaps HBO will do better with Rome II -- I'm not holding my breath, but hope springs eternal.

WoadWarrior, there is a wealth of knowledge on this site. Not a day goes by that I do not learn something new. This is a great resource -- use it to your advantage.

Narukami