Will it be based on Historical events like Ironclad was as I think that's what brought a lot of viewers in... also there does not seem to be a lot of big name actors, will there be more? Would be good if you could get some from the first Ironclad, who is the survivor, William Marshall?
shareNo idea don't who the Celtic invaders are.
shareIt appears the survivor is Guy, the squire character from the original movie, portrayed by a different actor.
The cast isn't bad. It looks like they rounded up the "Game of Thrones" cast on their summer hiatus and shipped them off to Kraljevo, Serbia, Yugoslavia for the shoot.
Hard to know yet about historical accuracy. The trailer alludes to a Celtic invasion Because the Celts were pretty well settled in Britain by the 6th century BC and because the events of the first movie take place in 1215 AD, it's hard to see how this will be a sequel. Perhaps I've misunderstood the trailer and all will be made clear in the movie.
Sounds like the producers plan to give the ticket-buying public what they've advertised though - it does look gratuitously and disgustingly bloody.
You didn't misunderstand, they just seriously screwed up the story by having writters that know nothing about history. 12 century celitc raiders? LOL
shareMaybe it's all explained in the movie, maybe the Celtic raiders used a time machine or magic potions to raid 12th century England. I haven't seen it. And I don't plan to, unless I get paid to watch it. A lot.
shareThis film has no historical basis and what historical events it does seem to reference seem to be wrong anyway.
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Celtic refers to an ethnolinguistic CULTURE. There were "Celts" trading and living throughout Europe
There is recorded history of "Celtic" mercenaries fighting for the ancient Greeks.
BRITONS, Gaels and Picts were the tribal inhabitants of Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland, before the Roman Invasion.
(The Irish "Scotti" tribe settled in Scotland as the Picts migration is archeological mystery.)
These peoples inhabited different parts of their homeland at different times.
POST Roman (The "Dark Ages")
was King Arthur (A British leader who is mentioned in the "Easter Chronicles") and much later
Robin Hood
who was obviously a mythical character based on several real persons who lived, some at different times and all contributing to the character of the hero we all know.
It's too bad that the film industry has decided to ignore the historical record to make trash like this and "game of thrones".
The real history is SO MUCH MORE exciting.
I'm all for films with an accurate historical basis, but there is a place for fantasy too. Game of Thrones never claims to be historical. History and Fantasy are both exciting and both have a place in the movies (and on TV).
The film industry does attempt to cover historical events. The trouble is when they do that they take huge liberties or make huge mistakes. There are however a whole load of films and TV shows based on historic events, including the first Ironclad film, so I'm not really sure where you get the idea that they are ignoring history. We did have Rome after all and more recently a run of shows of questionable accuracy from Michael Hirst (The Tudors, Vikings, etc). They rarely do historical events much justice but they are definitely not ignoring them.
The truth is almost always more interesting than what Hollywood comes up with, but that is something to hold against makers of movies that claim a historical basis and fail to live up to it. Don't blame the Fantasy shows for the failures of the "Historic" ones, they have nothing to do with each other. Nothing wrong with hating Fantasy however, that is fine. Some people like History, some like Fantasy, personally I like both.
I think we can all agree though that this movie is terrible. It fails in it's History, but it fails at everything else too. I've truly never seen a film that had such a complete list of total failure.
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
The film was so awful the only enjoyment I got was spotting the historical inaccuracies and just stupid errors. The funniest bits for me were the Scots painted blue looking like the Tartan Army on their way to Wembley; throwing burning wood over the battlements; the chieftain called Maddog (or Mad Dog) which sounds like a Welsh name to me; the Scots running at the castle walls with tiny ladders which magically reach the top of the battlements; Guy apparently going on to fight in the 100 Years War, when the film was set in the 13th century and the war took place in the14th when Guy would be long dead; and how did the narrator at the end know it would be called the 100 Years War. Pathetic.
The Hundred Years War bit in the epilogue did make me laugh, which in some ways made it the high point of the movie for me. Lol.
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
The main difference in Game of Thrones is that it takes place in another world, with fictional kingdoms (Westeros & Essos), magical creatures. Whereas this one takes place in our Earth in the past. That's why Historical inaccuracies make some people upset.
I don't care as I watch it as fantasy too, just like you. If I don't compare it to the first movie, I find it watchable as a movie I won't watch again but I didn't find boring either. But compared to the first one, it's a big failure !
I think if it had at least one of the redeeming features of the first movie I could have forgiven it falling flat on the rest (even if it was just the high quality gore), but really I can't imagine two siege films being any more different than the two Ironclads.
In a way though I don't regret watching it. It's failures are interesting in a "what not to do" kind of way. Not that I'm ever likely to make a movie, but I still find it interesting.
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.