[ 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

[(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)]

Well, if they're saying a haircut of all things (not language or background scenery, or incorrect weaponry/etc) is what's throwing them out of the film, they kind of are. Because they're assuming/saying that haircut could not have possibly existed in the time the movie represents so it's bothering them enough to pull them from the emersion of the film.

I honestly barely even notice haircuts in movies unless it's something stupid like having long hair in a fight scene (double if it's not restrained at all).

[(Anonymous)]

Er, not necessarily? They could be saying that this specific haircut doesn't fit the time period being portrayed in the movie. That's not the same thing as saying that the haircut never existed until now.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, but how do they know that for sure, is what I'm asking? A great deal of knowledge from that far back is focused on political/relationship stuff. It's entirely possible that hair style (or something similar) existed.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not a historian, but stuff like hairstyles and fashion aren't unknowable aspects of history. Historical sources don't ONLY cover politics. For example, how do we know how people wore their hair in Roman times? Bunches of artwork and statues, mainly. You can't completely eliminate the possibility that Romans wore spiked purple mohawks and that nobody happened to write about it, paint it or sculpt it, but you can make a pretty good guess that they didn't based on historical record.

[(Anonymous)]

Fair enough, but the photo used for this secret is generic short hair cut, which to me wouldn't really be out of place in any time period, to be honest.

[(Anonymous)]

The cut could fit any number of historical times and places, but the styling combined with massive amounts of glossy product is very specifically modern. I can ignore that sort of thing most of the time but totally understand why it ruins a movie for OP. I prefer the director/producers make an effort to be accurate or at least balance it if they can't be true to history. For this movie, it doesn't look like they even tried.

[(Anonymous)]

You're not wrong. Here's an historian's take on it.

https://aelarsen.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-the-trailer/

[(Anonymous)]

The photo is a bad angle to show this, but it's not a generic short hair cut. You can see from other promo pictures and the trailer that it's an undercut. Also, generic short hair cuts don't always go with every time period. Modern audiences are trained to think so because that's what TV and movies do, but in reality, keeping one's hair that short requires much more frequent trimming than most people in say, medieval times were equipped to do.

[(Anonymous)]

Er, there are plenty of time periods where a short hair cut would look out of place. How about Ancient Egypt, where people shaved their heads and wore wigs? China has periods where men's hair was shaved at the front with a long braid in the back. From the 5th c. until about the 15th, men typically wore their hair shoulder length and parted down the middle, with beards at first and then later without. Or how about 18th c. western Europe, where men of the court generally wore their hair long and curly, or powdered wigs in a ponytail? "Any time period" covers a lot of territory, and no, a generic short haircut (especially one with super short sides and a longer top with tons of hair product) is definitely not going to blend in seamlessly everywhere.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but when you're talking about those haircuts, you're mostly talking about the fashionable upper class. I could guarantee that you would see people with typical boring short haircuts anywhere, if you were to look among the general populace.