|
Choco1980 posted:In the same vein, movie swordfights. Now, I know that in fencing, you often block with your sword. With a non-fencing sword, which is what most people use in any given historical type film (keyword MOST. I know there's exceptions) you don't want to deflect with your sword because it's a good way to break it. Even at this point I can deal with things. The problem comes when the choreography is just plain sloppy and the swordfighters appear to be actually aiming for their opponents swords. I'm nitpicking, but hey, lets nerd out on this poo poo. This is is true if the sword is of poor quality steel, but good stuff is durable enough that your sword should not break. The edge will get all hosed up but straight up breaking it takes some doing. You would try not to have your sword get hit, but without a shield there will be parries and such. Swords obviously did break a lot though, so yeah it would only be used when the incoming blow could not be dodged. Movie swordfights are just a gigantic pile of irritating nonsense, though normally I can ignore it. One thing that drives me nuts is when characters are wearing armor, and swords and arrows just go right through it. The LOTR movies are exceptionally bad at this, like all those Gondorian dudes wearing full plate that is apparently made of foil as the bad guys just stab right through them all the time. Hell even chainmail was really hard to shoot an arrow through because of the padding worn under it.
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Quill posted:True story, though I believe it would only work with certain large swords. The kind with a pointy end, yet without a long sharp edge. Those weapons were more about crushing armor and bones, instead of cutting deep. Using the crossguard to smash some poor bastards skull in would be a reasonable move. No, you can do it with any blade, you can do it with your kitchen knife if you want. What cuts you is the blade edge sawing against your skin. If you keep it from doing so, it will not hurt you much at all. Now, odds are if you hold something by the blade and bang it against something enough without gloves on, you will cut yourself to some degree if the blade slips. The picture from talhoffer here.  Video on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rqP1F36EMY Also in general, there were no swords meant to "crush" anything. If you wanted to crush things, you used a mace, warhammer, or poleaxe. Swords were kept in varying degrees of sharpness, but all of them were meant to be able to cut you, outside of some rapiers and smallswords that were just made to thrust. Armor was good enough that no sword would cut through it, and most of the time a sword blade would not have enough oomph to do much percussive damage to a man in armor. There are of course exceptions and stuff. WoodrowSkillson has a new favorite as of 17:01 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Tyrannosaurus posted:The gently caress were people using swords for then? They were sidearms, like a pistol. Most dudes in armor carried a poleaxe or halberd or something like that into battle. Swords were what you used if you lost your pole weapon, or were ambushed without it. Also you can carry a sword around really easily in its scabbard, as opposed to lugging a poleaxe around everywhere you go. So if you got into a street fight, or were being robbed, or any other situation where you might fight, you would have a sword not something else. If you got stuck fighting a dude in armor and all you had was a sword, you held it like the knight in that picture and tried to jam the point into the joints in his armor, or through the slits in his visor, or into the groin or armpit. You did not just whack at him with the blade since you would not do enough damage to make it worth it. You clobbered him in the head with the hilt to stun him, and then tried to get the point somewhere nasty. Back in roman days, the rules are a bit different as not nearly as much armor was worn, so there was nearly always somewhere you could cut the guy.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Well in the real world battles have ended when a leader on one side died, so the idea of everyone going "gently caress this" after the death star and the flagship got blown up is not entirely crazy. Also a decent number of the big ships were probably somewhere near the death star and got exploded as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Falukorv posted:But by now i'm overthinking it, Star Wars is a space opera, ofc they can't go into the specifics of military doctrine and such. I thought the idea of a fear based military was pretty cool, with the at-at being a completely pointless but terrifying weapon. if they just put a few side guns on the thing and a couple underneath it would still be silly but it would make sense in a "holy poo poo that stomping noise is a loving building on legs oh god" type of way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
The books he is talking about are the first 3 timothy zahn wrote back in the 90s, which pretty much started the whole insane expanded universe poo poo. The books did not win a Pulitzer but are pretty good sci fi books if you want something mindless to read in a hammock or whatever, and are free of most of the silliness in other star wars stuff. I remember really liking them as a kid and recently picked one of them back up and it was still decent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Gaunab posted:Star wars. its pretty dumb but i wasted many years of my childhood loving it and now this knowledge is still in my brain
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Plus as much as people bitch and moan about the movie not being true to the source material the book had poo poo way more goofy that that. Like zombies walking around on the bottom of the ocean indefinitely, zombies freezing solid during the winter and then thawing out in the spring no worse for wear, zombies with their lungs turned inside-out from the force of explosions and still trucking along, all the while insisting that this was because of a viral infection and totally plausible...yet something actually new and original like the disease thing in the movie is just too much to handle. Yeah, there were a few things there that made no sense because the book makes it clear they are just reanimated human bodies and get weaker over time due to just using their muscles. Then he takes "the virus keeps bacteria from eating them" to mean that literally no normal decomposition happens. Seems like he should know that freezing a human body means that when it thaws it literally falls apart since the cells burst, and that not even a zombie would be able to function at the bottom of the ocean. The main narrative did not even need them to have these powers since the threat of new outbreaks will be ever present regardless since there has to be a natural reservoir.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Silly Newbie posted:It's important to remember that WWZ the book had literally zero reliable information sources, since it was told as a series of interviews. The only things you can take for a certainty are things that every character agrees on: things went to hell, the dead rose, things are maybe getting better. Everything else might be someone lying or just wrong. That's a lame excuse though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
I have read both. Unreliable narrators only make so much sense when the setting is one where literally everyone would have first hand experience with zombies and their behavior would be extremely well known.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 21:55
|
|