[ SECRET POST #3510 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3510 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Stephen King]


__________________________________________________



03.
[John Green]


__________________________________________________



04.
[American Gods]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Charlie Hunnam in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Penn & Teller: Fool Us]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Steven Universe]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Questionable Content]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Ghostbusters 2016]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 53 secrets from Secret Submission Post #502.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. http://i.imgur.com/Vt0aQ8k.jpg
[Charlie Hunnam in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword]

[(Anonymous)]

I just wish someone would make a version of the Arthurian legend that's worth watching. I can't think of any in the past 20 years that wasn't crap.

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh, yes. Everyone focuses on the damn magic sword (which is pretty cool, admittedly) and forgets about the Round Table. The immense symbolic and cultural importance of the Round Table.

It's like movies refusing to engage with the fact that Robin Hood is clearly an anti-feudalist character. The ONLY movie that gets that is Robin and Marian.

[philstar22]

I still love the miniseries with Sam Neil. Just watched it yesterday in fact.

[(Anonymous)]

Kaamelott is a great version. It's a comedy (for the most part), and it's in French, but, yeah.

[(Anonymous)]

Are all 'modern trendy' haircuts things that solely exist in this time period though? I mean, 20's bobs etc resurge now and then. It's not like you could say, "This style of cut for sure NEVER existed before now."

[(Anonymous)]

Well sure, it wouldn't make sense to say that. But nobody (including the secret) is saying that, so...?

[(Anonymous)]

I am extremely in favor of ahistoricism tbh. I mean, it's not like we're going to accurately reflect what the times were really like anyway. I really enjoy the Knight's Tale approach to historical movies tbh.

[lb_lee]

It's kinda a weird thing that bugs/entertains me too. On the plus side, gives me lots of entertainment trying to guess when a movie was made (if I don't already know).

God bless the 80s for leaving their aquanetted imprint everywhere.

[(Anonymous)]

LOL, I know. Big hair for everybody!

[case]

He looks like an average hipster with a sword. Is that supposed to be in-costume?

[glitteryv]

Yes, that's exactly how he looks in the movie (as per the trailer.)

[morieris]

This reminds me in Eragon how apparently some people were walking around with either jeans or straight up machine-stitched shirts...I mean there are dragons but there probably aren't machines.

[(Anonymous)]

There will probably be playful anachronisms all over this movie.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah I feel the same way. Brad Pitt's haircut in Fury really annoyed me.

[(Anonymous)]

Besides he'd look unironically great with a masculine pigtail. Or maybe slim braids in front of his ears? Hmm. Can't decide.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought we were aiming for medieval Briton rather than 18th century Hussar?

[(Anonymous)]

Have you considered tonsur?

[(Anonymous)]

I can sympathize. Michelle Pfeiffer's hair in Ladyhawke always bugged me. I have no grounds to say that hairstyle absolutely didn't/couldn't exist (especially since she was kind of living outside of society and might have cut it herself or wanted the option of passing as a boy) but it still looks weird to me, like it was trying to appeal to 80s audience more than it was trying to look old-timey.

[skeletal_history]

This is how I feel about movies set in the Victorian era featuring grown women wearing their hair down out in public, unless it's Cathy Earnshaw or something.

Although, thinking about it, anachronistic hair doesn't bug me (in general) nearly as much as anachronistic makeup. Like, I can buy a woman in the Wild West wearing her hair in a cute bob wwayyyy more than I can buy her walking around with waxy red bee-stung lips (like all the 1940s Western movies would have you believe was perfectly normal).

[(Anonymous)]

According to this hairstyle chart from ~1077, I'd say Hunnam's crew cut is pretty much spot on:
http://www.bayeuxmuseum.com/en/visuel_tapisserie.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

No, not really. Norman hairstyles of that era involved the sides and back of the head shaved, not merely trimmed short. Also, unless that movie version of King Arthur takes place in 1077, I'm not sure why the Bayeux tapestry is applicable at all. It's set in Londinium (abandoned in the 5th c.) and involves Vortigern, a 5th century warlord.

[(Anonymous)]

... that's 4-5 centuries too late for King Arthur. This is like showing us a photo of the Queen of England and claiming that it's accurate for Elizabeth I to be wearing pastel coordinated suits and pillbox hats.

[dinogrrl]

It's a minor hobby of mine to watch a historical film and try to guess when it was made by the hair styles. It's fun and surprisingly accurate :p I've seen it said more than once that having a movie/show with actual historical hair styles on all the actors would be amazing, but you'd probably lose a lot of your modern audience because some hairstyles were just so different that it'd be distracting to them.

There are some films/shows out there that do good, or at least passable, jobs, but yeah, most are kinda painful.

[(Anonymous)]

Reading through the comments here, and remembering the 2004 King Arthur movie as well, I'm realising how much I just generally dislike the 'historically accurate' genre of Arthurian adaptations. It's a mythology, most of the sources it's based on are 10th century and up, and even the earlier ones which name him as an actual historical king are more than a bit questionable and are still 9th century or later. Most of the actual themes and stories come either from Welsh legend or from medieval chivalric romance, and a lot of them are distinctly supernatural in nature and/or involving much later social mores. Plus it's just more fun when the supernatural elements are in play and it's running on grand fictional tragedy rather than blood-and-dirt 'historical plausibility'. I just think Arthur works better as a free-floating mythological figure, set wherever/whenever the adaptation wants to put him.

I don't know. I suppose, given that a lot of the earlier legends are Welsh and a lot of the later traditions do build back in a lot of 'celtic' elements, if I was doing an adaptation and had to put him anywhere I'd bump him all the way back to pre-Roman Iron Age Britain, where he's not going to get tangled up in arguments about Roman history, and just say that later sources are remnants of his legend echoing upwards. I'd just as soon step sideways, though, and admit straight up that the story is set in an idealised Britain that never really existed, and then get back to my medieval broadswords, plate armour, round tables, feudal trappings, and grand operatic tragedies of virtue, vice, magic, betrayal and murder.

Haircuts are optional, but I will say I never particularly liked the modern gelled look. If we're pre-metal armour or sideways to it or in magical hair-care territory, I kind of favour either flowing locks or just short curls, and if we're post-armour all the knights are going to have helmet-hair anyway.