Beleg Cúthalion on 17/6/2007 at 07:11

---

No, in fact something like a context...a world. A frame, figuratively. You said everything was predictable and that was my first attempt to reconstruct the idea in my mind. Well, I guess it's partly a language issue. :erg: No, I haven't seen the Battleship, I only read about it. What I meant was some thesis of Eisenstein to give the audience rough material that they have to think about quite intensively and so get the image the director wants them to get. That's what I thought about new ways to approach to the Garrett character. The comparison might be improper, I admit. I never denied all this (although I'd still prefer if someone did a good movie from his perspective, as I told before), but save for the usual discovery of his character I did not see something special in the script. And by the way, I still think the Hammerites were too evil, the Pagans too good, and there was too much action in the end (flame sowrds and so on)...so after all for me it did not seem toooo different from those simple popcorn movies you're complaining about.

Sorry, breakfast. And don't be suspicious of Doc. :p

PS: I almost forgot one: The belt buckles were just pars pro toto. The thing about fantasy is, that they often create items/weapons etc. that would not make sense even in this particular context. Leather armour for example. If skin could not be cut with sharp blades, there wouldn't be any. And I also mentioned those fantasy swords with pricky cross guards. I liked very much about LotR that they (especially re-enactor John Howe) avoided most of the nonsense in the film. Secondly, I think there are a lot of historical things in Thief, or/and at least there are few such nonsense elements in the original games. You have normal swords, the (City Guard's) armour is not too extraordinary, the houses represent a lot of historical architecture (or are at least supposed to do) and finally the social issues are usually meant to show a feudal system. Thirdly, it would be my personal demand to keep to historically correct items, because I like it and – on the other hand – it would certainly do no harm to the look of a movie.

Martek on 20/6/2007 at 03:50

---

By "historically correct items" I assume you mean "in the world of Thief", right?

Thief does not take place on Earth as we know it (if on Earth at all and not some other corner of some universe) and thus cannot be directly compared to anything historically correct (or not) on our Earth.

Martek

Martek on 20/6/2007 at 22:54

---

Nice dismissive attitude (and you didn't answer the question). Guess YOUR opinions are much more important than anyone elses.

Martek on 21/6/2007 at 11:52

---

That's what is confusing to me.

You seem to be both acknowledging that Thief is a fictional world with a fictional history and for which "new stuff" need be internally consistent with that universe; while at the same time referring to some "real Earth-based" history to which it should adhere. I can't tell which side you are taking and that is what I was asking for clarification of in my question to you. Your answer, here, is not clear.

Martek

Beleg Cúthalion on 21/6/2007 at 15:57

---

No, it's just a little more time consuming than designing something that only "looks cool".

@ Martek: I don't take a side, I just think that everything, that is not clearly fantasy, would be nice to see as something realistic. I am referring to buildings, clothes, everyday items, maybe social constellations. I've seen enough of people clad in rags (well, we thought that was medieval...), wrought-iron cutlery and super-enlightened heroes together with super-stubborn evil ones. I don't want to put everything into a historical corset, but at least avoid the more common fantasy clichés and superficialnesses.