Why isn't Hollywood using HEMA pros for actual realistic sword fights in historical movies...

Seriously this. Only absolute sperglords give a shit about "muh realism".

the british film the duellists I liked.

Attached: The Duellists.webm (704x400, 2.75M)

Why are the sword blades bending like plastic? Shit looks absolutely gay.

It ruins immersion. Dumb swords fights are fine if they are super heroes. It's just retarded if they are normal people.

Yeah but this actually works because this kind of fencing had very strict rules and was designed to be super dramatic and sportsmanlike.

>rubber sword
dropped after 5 seconds

>Immersion

I bet you clap at the end credits.

Realistic fights would be bland as fuck, it's a fact.

>big telegraphed baseball swings
Are these guys supposed to be total amateurs?

It's supposed to be dramatic. You know like a fictional story and not reality?

Perhaps the ultimate conclusion is that really, it's retarded to do films about swordfighting at all.

the absolute amount of braindead normie retards who know nothing of historical martial arts

BIG yikes

Great film though, Ridley Scott kino.

You do realize your "historical martial arts" shit is historically inaccurate larping by high school drama class losers?

what's dramatic about two retards swinging their swords at each other like they've never picked one up before?

It probably is, never seen it. Love most of Ridley's stuff, love harvey keitel too.
I just don't like the fight choreography, lol

>doesn't understand the point of stage combat in terms of narrative development of a story.

t. low iq zoomer.

Many emotions
such art
wow
youtube.com/watch?v=QfGFALXLJ7A

Face it negro, it's not cinematic.
I was for quite a while in historical reenacment, so sit down and be humble.

looks choreographed as fuck

now this is brutal and probably closer to what would actually happen in real life

btw, many of those hits would be fight-ending or outright lethal, in a unarmoured fight, and it still looks kind of borng.

ITT based movie sword fights.

youtube.com/watch?v=ERmM5l2ceoY

What's some more duel kinos

Attached: file.png (443x608, 322K)

These games are far from realistic simply for the fact that all participants know they're safe and fighting just for points, instead of actually trying to kill each other.

>if you like good fight choreography you're a zoomer
kek.

Attached: elrond laugh.gif (280x202, 1.89M)

Same reason nobody in movies talk like real people, it's not as visually interesting and dramatic.

Though most of it is probably time constraints. Hard to do good action when you have a single afternoon to film an elaborate action scene in a room filled to the brim with divas in hot costumes and it takes 30 minutes to set up every new take.

whoever was involved in this video needs to have sex immediately

because realistic swordfights are usually over in about 10 seconds tops or they're wearing plate armour and bludgeon the fuck out of each other with maces until one of them is unconcious and gets stabbed in the eye/under the armpit with a dagger

what i want to know is why i've never seen a push-of-pike or formation halberd battle on film when it was the standard way of fighting in the late medieval period

Fuck this makes me want to play The Witcher 2 again.

It's the same with martial art films, one swift kick to the head would end most fights but you've got to have longer unrealistic fight scenes otherwise you wouldn't have a movie and people wouldn't be entertained.

Attached: jackie chan.webm (1280x692, 2.9M)

JUST

Attached: what the hell.png (498x341, 376K)

>Thinking "realism" is good fight choreography.

Go larp in the park with foam swords faggot.

True, but then again what could be expected from a real fight? I'd say that 90% of time would be feeling the openent and fishing for an opening, and then 1 or 2 deciding clashes. A single sword strike can be be lethal.

>. Plus, with the weight of armour, they’d tire out fighting like this in a couple of minutes.
why do basedboys on the internet assume knights who trained their entire lives to fight in armor would tire in just a few minutes

Because HEMA Is visually boring to watch if you're not a /k/ autist or historian.

Plus the kind of fighting you see in kung fu movies has fuck all to do with real martial arts and everything to do with peking opera fantasy stage combat.

A single sword strike would probably not be lethal, in a real fight they'd be wearing armor

Jackie Chan is the pinnacle of fight choreography

is this a monty python sketch?

I do agree that real fights would be short. To begin with, it's highly unlikely that random combatants would be anywhere close to equal in skill.

This looks just as contrived as hollywood shit.

>thinks nonsensical physical performances is good acting
lol. it's like watching a special forces character go side grip and guns akimbo in a modern action movie or something.

youtube.com/watch?v=l2KWTEhyVX8

This one gives you a better idea of the movies' tone

Because real sword fighting, even with hema, relies heavily on the "oh god please dont stab me" approach to fighting. stage fighting looks alot better because it is specifically made to look good and makes the combatants look great instead of how in real life people try and find an opening to exploit and look like autists. It is the same reason why normies seethe in rage when Mayweather fights but love it when Butterbean fights

>bitching about gun grip a fictional movie character is using.

You still sound like a friendless sperg.

Not just that, explain to me how this hema shit isn't as staged and fake as anything you see in a movie?

>because realistic swordfights are usually over in about 10 seconds tops or they're wearing plate armour and bludgeon the fuck out of each other with maces until one of them is unconcious and gets stabbed in the eye/under the armpit with a dagger

everything about this sounds crazy cool though

surely someone can capture the intensity of how swift and cruel life can be taken in this manner, instead of watching two faggots mash blades for 10 minutes. there's plenty of movies that capture the chaos of warfare and instant lethality just fine, but why not 1v1 duels?

>it's realistic because it looks clumsy! And knights were clumsy brutes!

Big yikes, my friends. Their attacks are comically telegraphed and they fall to the ground for no reason on more than one occasion. Not realistic at all.

>why normies seethe in rage when Mayweather fights but love it when Butterbean fights
this is a perfect analogy

armor weighs less than the gear football players wear every game

I like that a lot more. I think I'll have to watch this movie.

>Free flowing fights like these wouldn’t even happen in real battles considering the fact that everyone would be in formation.

No shit Sherlock. It's a duel.

>Plus, with the weight of armour, they’d tire out fighting like this in a couple of minutes

The state of normie hollywood education. Armor is lighter than modern combat gear. You can run marathons in it.

Because pretty much the only time you have 1v1 duels are during important story moments and you want to draw them out to be more dramatic.

real fights are just chaotic messes of flailing limbs. you rarely ever see a knockout at all and usually they just kind of fizzle out when both parties get too tired.

Spot the American. I am sure you like gunpowder line battles because that's the only history your cucked country can look back to.

what OP posted is staged as shit, but in hema competitions or even fencing you can find on youtube a 'match' is pretty quick.

but butterbean would destroy mayweather in a real fight

It looks choreographed and insincere as fuck because they aren't actually trying to kill each other.

shaky cam, tilting angles, unnecessary grunting...

how is this different from hollywood stuff?

youtu.be/gAkqWlurzyo

*ahem*

>surely someone can capture the intensity of how swift and cruel life can be taken in this manner
Many old samuri movies and the shootout scenes in westerns do this well, but the problem is that in the west we are made to assume that a match ending that quickly is because the duelist who won was a godlike duelist, and the loser was a complete chump that never practiced

True but much of the time in martial art films the fighters are very accurate and are constantly taking punches and kicks to the head and body, but don't go down and keep coming back for more.

why are they swinging at each other's swords lol

based
you always get these /k/ fanatics bitching about the inaccuracy of gun usage in fucking fictional TV shows, it's fucking annoying

>real fights are just chaotic messes of flailing limbs. you rarely ever see a knockout at all and usually they just kind of fizzle out when both parties get too tired.

Only if the combattants are absolute amateurs. Which is the case in 9/10 times.

in a 'real fight' mayweather would just use a superior weapon like a gun against butterbean, or better yet have his group of people that follow him just jump on butterbean and stab him to death.

Those 1v1 fights on worldstar are not real, just a bunch of retards pretending to have dignity

90% of an actual real sword fight is feints and parries. It'd be terribly boring to watch and generally lasts 1-2 mins

I don't know, maybe because they don't actually want kill each other with a sharp hardened blade

For those people that actually want to see what it looks like when people fight each other with swords in real life.

youtube.com/watch?v=KvertGZkwF4

Sikh are not trained sword fighters.

Fuck, that looks way fun much more engaging than a gym workout.

what is with them always hiring a camera man who suffers from parkinsons

Attached: arnie conan.webm (1280x544, 2.39M)

I feel like 2 minutes is a fine length for a fight scene in a movie where realistic fights are a reasonable goal. If it's an action movie where the fights are 15 minutes long then you'd have to be a fucking retard to try to make the fights realistic, you should be trying to make them look cool.

As someone pointed out. Old samurai movies generally made it work fairly well.
youtube.com/watch?v=rn4FY_k9FyE

Though you do need that old style of slow paced film-making to do it, so it wouldn't work in today's movies where pacing is so rapid and unrelenting.

Because they’ve watched boxers, who’ve trained their whole lives, tire out after a few minutes.

Who doesn't like swards.

youtube.com/watch?v=uIFpeBwfvbc

Attached: Sue Brunning British Museum5.webm (1000x837, 1.92M)

combination of and of the continued misconception that knight armor was hard to move in, when in reality it was amazing with respects to poor vision
youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc

Except your not realizing that a good 100 seconds of that 120 seconds is the two of them feigning swings until one puts a limb out too far and the other ends it with a slash and thrust.

It would be anti-climactic everytime

It actually isn't. You just need an actually good filmmaker to do it.

I am sure you can find a nice balance between historic fencing techniques and an entertaining spectacle.

That's how most fights are choreographed. Swinging against each other with near misses and maybe a scratch or two until one gets taken out by a decisive hit.

youtube.com/watch?v=ljExTEPNFnM
I've heard this is one of the most realistic duels. The one guy is fighting flamboyantly to show off against the older man. I believe its a fight over a woman and hes trying to be flashy. The older man is much more experienced.

Yeah, which is true for most people who've ever lived and ended up in a sword fight. Most of the time its just people basically trying to scare the other who keep the distance because getting sworded is pretty bad. In war, most people only died when they broke rank and tried to flee and were chased down and stabbed in the back. That's the reality of the majority of sword fights that have ever taken place.

Even today in modern warfare most of the time when a soldier is shooting his gun he's doing is to force the enemy to retreat, run into machine gun fire or pin them down so that tanks, gunships or jets can kill them with explosives.

Armed Knights in full plate is still lighter than standard kit an american army grunt has to carry, by 20kg.

>he believes swords were battlefield weapons

Your whole argument was destined to collapse in on itself from the get go. These poos are fighting with swords for the first time in their life without any armor. It is not comparable to medieval battles at all.

What could realistically penetrate full plate armour? Pikes and spears? A sword seems too risky.

Attached: Henry Cavill The Tudors.jpg (2000x1333, 469K)

They stop every few seconds

Not spears no. Warhammers, poleaxes, helbards etc. You'd normally try to bash someone in plate to an inch of his life with a blunt weapon before using a dagger to finish him of.

All that shit can, if it hits the right angle with enough force.
That's why it's shaped the way it is so that blade will just slide off.

Feints aren't swings. A real sword duel will consist of maybe 4-5 actual swings.

Sword combat can be done realistically and I'm not sure why it isn't more, but a duel isn't aesthetic

You cannot effectively penetrate plate with swords or spears.

>You'd normally try to bash someone in plate to an inch of his life with a blunt weapon before using a dagger to finish him of.

I imagine the kinetic energy of constantly being bashed would still bruise and cause damage, and wear you down.

Attached: Henry VIII armour3.jpg (3198x1311, 788K)

>I never leave the house because of my "anxiety" but know exactly what a real life fight to the death with swords would look like

Attached: soy.jpg (400x400, 30K)

It is in the sense the older man was taunting him to embarrass him, but that fight if done with the soul motivation to kill would've been 5 secs long

Why do you know me so well, user?

until someone slices your femoral aterial.
Not that I wouldn't try though (with kevlar on)

Fucking based i remember my 9th grade history teacher showed us this and told us it was probably closer to real life than most movies

Imagine losing your entire sea-faring empire. Get fucked, Nigel

That gold/brassy looking one:
It's not gold, but why is it yellow metal?
Surely brass/bronze would've been too soft compared to steel?

OP BTFO.

Attached: 1411418036772.webm (854x480, 2.38M)

Real sword fights would be over in seconds. No drama in such violence.

Swords were carried and used on the battlefield. You have kriegsmessers, zweihanders, rapiers as examples of swords that were developed for use on the battlefield and primary arms. Granted, polearms were the most common weapon on the battlefield but even fights or battles involving them are often imagined as having a lot of actual killing between the two sides even when both sides are holding formation where you have people who heroically charge into shieldwalls and spearlines.

The reality is that everyone always takes the most defensive stance they can and stays out of the enemy's reach. Then the two sides try to do shit that makes the other guy run away and when he does he was run down and stabbed in the back.

Ambushes are a bit different though. During an ambush the attack relies on the fact that the enemy hasn't drawn a weapon yet, that allows you to put yourself in a supremely advantageous position that allows you to kill the enemy quickly, force them to surrender or rout them.

Now, the point I'm trying to make here is that being a great wielder of your weapon of choice is mostly irrelevant as long as you know the absolute basics. The rest is about tactics and formation and using those to force the enemy to retreat.

>implying I am a bong

youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo

Then tell me where you are from

Why are the Brits obsessed with the Americans and the Americans are obsessed with the Brits. Just get a room.

Attached: england and america.jpg (635x726, 54K)

Kriegsmesser was a sidearm, Zweihänder and rapiers were post medieval ages mostly. Combat lasted for hours and the claim that they just stayed out of each others reach for most of the time like in your video is unrealistic. Armor and shields are a complete game changer and so is experience and training.

Yes, men would break from injuries, casualties and the general strain of combat but not as quick as the inexperienced, unarmored Sikh in your video

Because there's alway at least one nigger who feels the need to drag countries into a discussion when it has nothing to do with it and they're always British

>rapiers

Attached: 1400262528237.png (175x179, 48K)

I want her to handle my sword.
Why did the gloves make it so much hotter?

Attached: daproved.jpg (303x303, 27K)

They're two cultural powerhouses on 4chins, thanks mainly to the English language of course.

Attached: hmmmm.jpg (1754x1132, 204K)

not trying to be that guy but they seem to be holding back
I don't know there's just no ferocity in that

I dont know why faggots get autistic about swordfights as opposed to everything else in film. In real life fist fights to the death arent about expertly weaving and hitting pressure points and shit no matter how you're trained. When you're using your barehands to try and kill someone who's trying to do the same you're wrestling on the ground pummeling the fuck out eachothers face and gouging and kicking and strangling.
Knife fights aren't about catching people's hands and twirling knives before catching them perfectly in the skull and spinning around like a ballerina it's just wildly flailing you're shitty hunting knife around while getting cut to shit and praying you cut the other guy better.
But guess what? That's played up fro dramatics just like everything else I dont know why people expect swords to be any different

When handling delicate and precious objects gloves are needed.

Attached: sue brunning british museum-2.webm (1280x720, 2.55M)

Because there have been lots of great Hollywood first fights and knife fights but pretty
much every movie sword fight is just silly looking flailing

> This looks way better than the garbage they trot out
But it doesn't and it isn't historically accurate either.

Because in most cases you just get one non-lethal blow but get concussion

That last one is some Dark Souls looking shit

>Medieval show/game
>Everyone fights in only swords

Is this even realistic?
MACE GANG WW@

Attached: file.png (900x700, 694K)

>Zweihänder and rapiers were post medieval ages mostly
Yes but my points aren't about the medieval age, its about sword fighting and battles in general.

>Combat lasted for hours and the claim that they just stayed out of each others reach for most of the time like in your video is unrealistic.

During these hour long battles, most forces weren't engaging the enemy at the front in hand-to-hand fighting. That is, they were keeping their distance and saving their strength until they had could flank the enemy or reinforce the front when needed. OR are you going to claim that it was actually more common for all forces to just run mindlessly straight into each other and it was just a massive meat grinder all the time? Because, hardly anything points to that being the case while most points to the opposite being true.

Its really important that you don't muddle the point I'm making with the Shik video. The point is that most of the time, sword fights (not battles) are literally just dudes who don't know how to actually fight just flailing their EDC swords in each others general direction until the other side run away or someone managed to land a hit. Battles are different but only in that the ability of the fighters to actually defend themselves is much greater which is why the fights went on for hours. That most deaths and casualities, even on the battlefield took place during routs is a well documented fact that is backed up by first hand accounts from the eras. Pretty much everyone who fought in well organized battles and wrote it down, be it a Roman from the 150 BC or a German in 1554 AD, agreed that as long as you kept formation, you were safe and as long as both sides kept formation, then the battle could last for hours. It wasn't a constant meat grinder at the front, people were using their shields, trying to get the enemy inside their range, making small movements back and forth. There were formations that just stood and watched entire battles unfold.

checked

Nice quads. Where do you think the Japs/FromSoft got their inspiration from? Europe obviously.

Attached: darksouls3-4.webm (720x404, 2.99M)

Gotta go with the pick-hammer assuming you can still wield a shield effectively

Weren't people wearing armor generally more likely to be captured?
What I mean is, I remember reading that men-at-arms would often try to capture knights and random them back to their families (at least during the 100 year war)
Didn't the average man-at-arms have no money for armor, and generally wore like a hauberk or something?
I don't know I'm asking.

>Weren't people wearing armor generally more likely to be captured?
>What I mean is, I remember reading that men-at-arms would often try to capture knights and random them back to their families (at least during the 100 year war)

You were more likely to be captured if you were nobility, if you were nobility you wore heraldry.

>Didn't the average man-at-arms have no money for armor, and generally wore like a hauberk or something?
This is sorta kinda wrong. Few of them could afford proper custom-made full plate armor like knights would because they weren't rich like the knights were. However they weren't poor and they weren't stupid so they bought whatever armor they could afford and get their hands on since their life depended on it however loads of them didn't exactly have access to the best blacksmiths at the time so a lot of them wore very janky pieces of armor. YOu can look up the armors from the Visby massgraves if you're interested in seeing the wide variety of armors you could find people wearing around that time in that region as an example.

What the fuck? I never had this cutscene

youtube.com/watch?v=LdVYW9r2G3U

Poleaxe kino, every step of the fight broken down and explained

Attached: 15th_century_knight_by_skane_smeden.jpg (1280x1024, 222K)

I liked it.

Attached: 154870342326.webm (800x332, 2.79M)

these slow motion sequences are awful

Hollywood does fine for the most part

Yeah dude, fight scenes should move so fast that the viewer can't follow what's happening, like in real life. That makes sense for a visual medium. Fucking dipshit.

Yeah it’s about the spectacle, we’re going to be entertained not please some little group of wheezing nerds.

>immersion
That's a hard oof

If you're a dueling gentleman you're not going to walk around with a fucking warhammer on your belt. That's battlefield gear. That would be like strapping a mortar.

You do realize that Rome was almost entirely built on people just hiding behind shields and stabbing the enemy with swords. The general consensus is that the Roman legions were probably a viable military unit well into the 2nd millenium.

The battlefield of antiquity is not the same as the battlefield of the middle ages. And the late middle ages were very different from the early middle ages.

Its a Saber, you faggot, you have to really swing that shit.

Attached: DSC_0657.jpg (3840x2160, 2.75M)

I feel I'm watching dark souls combat with heavy builds

Indeed it was however if you incorporated legionaries into a 14th century army, I'd say they'd still be a perfectly viable formation.

Also, even in antiquity, the lack of spear formations in the Roman army was odd. A phalanx was considered a terrifying formation yet the roman chose short swords rather than spears in their shield formations.

Right, exactly. He could have killed him pretty much any of those parries. He was even using his offhand for a lot of it. I've just heard the back and forth parrying and ripostes like that was pretty realistic and the actors worked very hard at it with a real saber master. I want to say I heard it from that Skallagrim? guy?

youtube.com/watch?v=YhwIrONyEzg
Most realistic fight I know of is The Duellists. All of the duels are good but this first one is the best.

It's because most sword fights aren't actually about the swords. The swords are just an extension of the emotions of each character, hence the clashing and locking of the swords.

Thats to join the moundmaker covenant

>t. chubby fuck who's never even touched a sabre

What is this

Why post something completely wrong?

>has never seen a trained person street fight
Knockouts happen and they happen fast.

>Shaky cam the whole time
>30 Quick cuts
>Good
The absolute state of Yea Forums

Ok yes this is good thank you. You can see he slightly feints a few times. I used to fence but cant find a sparring partner anymore.

HEMA is historical mostly in title. Sure it's way more realistic and would have some actual real life usage if not for gunpowder, however calling this thought-up fencing style aimed at scoring points in a controlled tournament environment and based purely off a very very few scrolls and books that survived the passage of time historical is a very big stretch.

More like a big yikes

It is the most realistic, they had a historical account of this specific duel and had actual duelists instructing them.
It took them months to shoot this one scene. He does flourishes to put the smug noble hostage in his place.

It's tense alright but that's not a proper stance. Using cuts at all is ineffective with this type of sword, such wide ones is just asking to be stabbed. It's a great movie but it's usually praised for the combat realism and that just ain't right. There are numerous breakdowns of this very scene from professional fencers, you can look those up if you're interested.

youtube.com/watch?v=Yt_tGmkfaGs

youtube.com/watch?v=4GoQlvc_H3s&feature=youtu.be&t=130

If those were long swords, but as said before, making slashes or cuts with a rapier is just laughable. The action itself is pretty real though.

youtube.com/watch?v=SfpagB8wWng

Holmgang Hamburg - crazy germans dueling with sharp swords and axes.

youtube.com/watch?v=zsBF6YDwhUU
youtube.com/watch?v=6t8deMlABJ8

because battles would be 10 minutes of sidestepping back and forth trying to get glance hits until someone gets too close and then it turns into a fist/grapple.