TV/Movies Megathread

[Berkut]

He likened it to watching a WW2 drama in which Hitler is depicted wearing plate armour and riding a unicorn into battle ...

it's historical fiction, not fantasy   

Great movie, a few things here and there that aren't working at all, but, hey, it's fiction, it's based on a novel, and it's a great movie.

There's more than a few things.  The blue face paint is hundreds of years out of date and the Battle of Sterling Bridge without a bridge are two of the larger howlers.

Those are "large howlers"????

[Barrister]

He likened it to watching a WW2 drama in which Hitler is depicted wearing plate armour and riding a unicorn into battle ...

it's historical fiction, not fantasy   

Great movie, a few things here and there that aren't working at all, but, hey, it's fiction, it's based on a novel, and it's a great movie.

There's more than a few things.  The blue face paint is hundreds of years out of date and the Battle of Sterling Bridge without a bridge are two of the larger howlers.

Those are "large howlers"????

Umm, yes?

Blue face paint was Pictish.  The guys who fought the Romans.  It's a millenia out of date.  And the whole point of the Battle of Sterling Bridge was, well, that there was a bridge there.  That's more than just griping about using the wrong kind of sword.

[Berkut]

He likened it to watching a WW2 drama in which Hitler is depicted wearing plate armour and riding a unicorn into battle ...

it's historical fiction, not fantasy   

Great movie, a few things here and there that aren't working at all, but, hey, it's fiction, it's based on a novel, and it's a great movie.

There's more than a few things.  The blue face paint is hundreds of years out of date and the Battle of Sterling Bridge without a bridge are two of the larger howlers.

Those are "large howlers"????

Umm, yes?

Blue face paint was Pictish.  The guys who fought the Romans.  It's a millenia out of date.  And the whole point of the Battle of Sterling Bridge was, well, that there was a bridge there.  That's more than just griping about using the wrong kind of sword.

OK, howl away then.

[Valmy]

OK, howl away then.

How about creating a nationalistic myth based on hate and lies that has real world implications? Is that worth howling about?

[Malthus]

Also - Edward "Longshanks" in fact died of dysentery on his way to fight the Scots again, and his last request was, allegedly, to have his skeleton flayed, tied to his horse, and lead against the enemy in battle!

Which is, like, the most metal thing ever.  A zombie Longshanks in a medieval battle would have been awesome.

(Sadly, they didn't actually do that.)

Second most metal thing - on the death of Robert the Bruce, his heart was pickled, put in a flask, and taken on crusades into battle!

When a projected international crusade failed to materialise, Sir James Douglas and his company, escorting the casket containing Bruce's heart, sailed to Spain where Alfonso XI of Castile was mounting a campaign against the Moorish kingdom of Granada. According to John Barbour, Douglas and his companions, including Sir William de Keith, Sir Kenneth Moir, Sir Simon Locard, Sir William de St. Clair and John de St. Clair of Rosslyn and the brothers Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig and Sir Walter Logan, were welcomed cordially by King Alfonso. In August 1330 the Scots contingent formed part of the Castilian army besieging the frontier castle of Teba. Under circumstances which are still disputed, Sir James and most of his companions were killed. The sources all agree that, outnumbered and separated from the main Christian army, a group of Scots knights led by Douglas was overwhelmed and wiped out. The surviving members including Sir Simon Locard of the company recovered Douglas' body together with the casket containing Bruce's heart. The heart, together with Douglas' bones were brought back to Scotland.

Seems to have been the style at the time to have post-mortem participation ...

[Malthus]

Those are "large howlers"????

Read my note. 

[Admiral Yi]

The "right of first night" simply never existed, it is a creation of Victorian prurient fantasy.

What is your source for this assertion?

[Malthus]

The "right of first night" simply never existed, it is a creation of Victorian prurient fantasy.

What is your source for this assertion?

It's fictitious, or at least, no actual evidence for it has been found. Not to be confused with powerful dudes raping underlings, which undoubtedly happened.

Marriage fees paid by serfs appear to have been a genuine thing (going either to their lord or the church), but the suggestion that they were a replacement for jus primae noctis is unproven.[1] Some cultures may have had a more general right allowing tribal leaders to have any woman they liked.[6] And some cultures would have been unable to stop the king or other ruler from doing anything he fancied. Most recent references suggest in Europe in the Middle Ages it was fiction, even those sources which try their hardest to come up with similar practices.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jus_primae_noctis

It appears to have been popularized by Voltaire, basically as a dig at the aristocracy. It (allegedly) gained currency in the 19th century, as a way of showing just how damned backwards those medieval aristocrats were.

As for how the myth developed, see:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230603097_4

To summarize: there was in some places a tax on marriage (a certain amount of cash paid to one's feudal lord); through quirks in the language, later folks interpreted this as cash in lieu of a lord's right to sleep with the bride, which it most certainly was not (the "feudal lord" in question was, in some cases, the Church, which would have made that very odd); later writers, such as Voltaire, used this purported "right" as a way of lampooning aristocrats; it then because cemented into the popular imagination by 19th century writers, who used it to give a prurient interest to their historical fiction, and to show how backwards medieval times really were.

[garbon]

Is it worse than Churchill in Peaky Blinders?

[Valmy]

Is it worse than Churchill in Peaky Blinders?

Well let's not go crazy here. Nothing approaches that level of outrage.

[Barrister]

Went and saw Addams Family with the kids this weekend.  It's a new animated remake.  I wasn't even aware thjey were making one till my wife said she wanted to take the kids.

It was... okay.  I am aware of the 60s show though never really watched it, do remember seeing the 90s movies at the time and thought they were fun, but haven't seen those in years.  Either the time was ripe for a remake, or this is a remake no one was asking for.

It was... okay.  I laughed a handful of times, but probably less times than the film makers were going for.  It riffs on a number of horror movies both old and new.  The characters are all about what you'd expect.  Kids (Josh in particular) were worried the movie would be scary, but of course it wasn't in the slightest.

When we got home I watched an episode of the 60s show on tv.  It was interesting how daughter Wednesday went from just a bit character in the tv show, to probably having more screen time than her parents in the 2019 movie.  She also switched from being 6 to being in junior high, and from being the younger, to the older, sibling.

[Admiral Yi]

It's fictitious, or at least, no actual evidence for it has been found.

Wikipedia does not go nearly as far as you or Rationalwiki go.

I noticed several references in the Wikipedia article to rulers abolishing the right.  Are there similar historical examples of fictitious rights being legally abolished?

[Malthus]

It's fictitious, or at least, no actual evidence for it has been found.

Wikipedia does not go nearly as far as you or Rationalwiki go.

I noticed several references in the Wikipedia article to rulers abolishing the right.  Are there similar historical examples of fictitious rights being legally abolished?

As for how the myth developed, see:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230603097_4

To summarize: there was in some places a tax on marriage (a certain amount of cash paid to one's feudal lord); through quirks in the language, later folks interpreted this as cash in lieu of a lord's right to sleep with the bride, which it most certainly was not (the "feudal lord" in question was, in some cases, the Church, which would have made that very odd); later writers, such as Voltaire, used this purported "right" as a way of lampooning aristocrats; it then because cemented into the popular imagination by 19th century writers, who used it to give a prurient interest to their historical fiction, and to show how backwards medieval times really were.

It was this tax on marriage that was abolished.

[Sheilbh]

I noticed several references in the Wikipedia article to rulers abolishing the right.  Are there similar historical examples of fictitious rights being legally abolished?

I think there's a few of Christian monarchs who promulgate a code of laws abolishing very dubiously grounded pagan practices.

I imagine there's similar with, say the Napoleonic Code, and "unenlightened" ancien regime practices that didn't really exist (I think this is definitely the case in Venice).

It probably happens when a body of law has a significant propaganda purpose as well as just being a body of law?

[Admiral Yi]

I think there's a few of Christian monarchs who promulgate a code of laws abolishing very dubiously grounded pagan practices.

I imagine there's similar with, say the Napoleonic Code, and "unenlightened" ancien regime practices that didn't really exist (I think this is definitely the case in Venice).

It probably happens when a body of law has a significant propaganda purpose as well as just being a body of law?

This I can see: folk or pre-Christian practices that were never given the full sanction of law and which were eventually outlawed.  But that's not the same as saying the practice is fictitious.