I would prefer you did it after at least seeing a trailer!
Why?
Genuinely, not like sarcastic or whatever. If we're seeing still shots of actors in their full costumes acting on set, why can't we comment on those costumes? I mean, we're not expecting (I assume) that like maybe some superhero moves or something, that the costumes are going to be partially CGI and therefore will look better in post, right?
Having seen pics and drawings of the supposed period accurate armour all the history expert nerds are whining should be used instead, I can only say "FUCK YOUR CLOWNSUIT", I will happily take whatever inaccurate bullshit Nolan's guys have come up with instead. All their examples looked like complete shit, and a complete pain in the arse to do anything in.
I think there's a conversation to be had about who a movie like this is for. You can TRY to appeal to the 'common man' for sure -- but are people going to flock to this movie like it's the next Lord of the Rings and bring millions of people to the world of history and myth that weren't already interested or were previously actively disinterested? Probably not.
It's like when Ridley Scott makes a historical movie specifically targeted at fans of history and then ignores the historical advisors and gets upset when the target audience of the movie doesn't like it. Who did you THINK you were making this movie for?
I'd also argue there's a vastness to what could be used in this film beyond maybe just what few pictures or drawings you might have seen, that can look very good. There's space between 'completely historical accurate to the best of our understanding' and 'outlandish fantasy bullshit that looks like it's made of plastic.'
The period-accurate armor looks like when a kid can't afford a certain Halloween costume and has to shoddily make it at home from leftover materials. Like, I get that that's what they had back then, but I feel like if I showed up to a costume party in that, it would only end in me getting an atomic wedgie.
It's hard to comment on that without seeing what you're looking at. But it's worth noting that there are a LOT of enthusiastic reenactors/living history enthusiasts out there that cannot afford really well-made armour, and a lot of it may even be homemade. It may not be representative of what a professional armourer with a budget could make.
Sure, you have the people (nerds) complaining that it's not accurate to the time period, but you'd also have film bros complaining that the accurate thing looks stupid, and honestly, I'd rather listen to the former than the latter.
I wouldn't. Why MAKE historical films and then say 'but the history is stupid so we're not going to use it.'
I want to make a WWII movie, but WWII guns are fucking dumb, so everyone gets sweet-ass SCARs and M249 Paras.
We also have to consider the difference between historically accurate and historically reasonable. For example, Kingdom of Heaven had fantastic costuming. Was it accurate? Technically, no. But it was -close-, and it was paying decent care to being within the realm of what people had. It was just a hundred years off in either direction at times, and had some modern conventions.
Modern conventions you'll probably never escape. I don't think many movies set in 16th century England would honestly attempt to pull off historically accurate codpieces. To a modern eye they just look absolutely ridiculous. But that also doesn't mean you take the ENTIRE wardrobe of a 16th century gentleman and replace it all with something from Sons of Anarchy because 'that looks cooler to me.'
There has to be a balance. And what I think a lot of us on the 'history' side are saying is that there's actually no balance here. It's PURE garbage with no history. And I would 100000% argue for the Philistines here that aren't even into this sort of stuff; Nolan could make those costumes 70% historically plausible and you'd love them and think the movie looks just as cool as you think it looks now.
