Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuruharan
Film is a visual medium. The more elaborate something is the more visually impressive.
And accuracy has never been very high on a film-maker's to do list.
|
Does it need to be impressive though? A Game of Thrones is a huge success but it's quite low on the visuals, compared to most US output. The joust scene in the first series was hardly epic, more like something the BBC would turn out - and I think the producers of the series
Merlin would have made it more 'visually stunning' (and the books give the impression of lots more colour/pageantry, too). An amazing script and cast can mean the SFX and art department needn't cost mega bucks. Also see:
Robin of Sherwood for high impact but less showy 'historical' drama.
I think it's because there are different perceptions or audience expectations of the period, not always, certainly nowadays, limited to which country is making the drama, but in the past it seems to have been. It might be a British thing to react with distaste if something isn't accurate (I couldn't enjoy The Kings Speech for example because it's simply wrong). Certainly our re-enactment societies are a completely different kettle of fish to the fun that seems to be had at Ren Fairs.