Tartan Jack

DING DING DING!!!!!!! One of a NUMBER of inconsistancies in the PotC series. It just seems to me that there were just too many hands in the pot and convolution of the plloting, writing, and shooting. Things just "POP" up, that really are not really anyone's fault in particular, but in the final cut of a trilogy.

I saw the film last night. I actually enjoyed it. They tied MUCH MORE of the loose ends than I expected. It made a decent "hollywood" movie. I have an odd take on "history" films. I am a trained historian, but have a family DEEPLY entrenched in the arts and the film industries. My uncle is an ASC member (and the youngest to every recieve as many of their award nominations in a single year), my brother and 2 cousins went to film school and we are ALL film NUTS. So, I tend to look at movies 2 ways at the same time: 1) Is it a good film? 2) Is it good history? Now, back to POTC, it is a good film, in what it pertains to be. I think they went got a bit infatuated with CGI and lost much good writing (which makes me long for the censor days, when writers had to write around sex and violence instead of just make it as graphic as possible-> it lead to some VERY GOOD writing and subtle enuendo). MUCH more could have been done with the calypso/Jones relationship and characters. They also lost Jack's "sly" edge from the first movie and made him more of a lucky nut. They also missed an AMAZING chance at a MASSIVE naval battle. There were also WAY to many "backstories" that needed to be explained at LEAST a WEE bit more, esp Jack's relationship to Beckett and the EITC and Jack's relation to a NUMBER of other characters. Actually, there was probably simply WAY to many important characters by this point (in contrast, for example, to another popular trilogy: the ORIGINAL Star Wars one.) Visually, the ships, costumes, weapons, flags, and ALL the rest of the prop and art department stuff was BEAUTIFUL. I enjoyed the "name the flag" when they "hoisted the colors" (whether or not the associated pirates themselves would even recognize ANY of them. From a historical side: It was SO far "off" as for me to put that aside and just enjoy it.

Several days later and eline de lussac has yet to post a second time. SO, I have a feeling it was a "spam-esque" hit and run. It was AT LEAST theme related and does not SEEM to be $$$$ related. PLEASE, eline de lussac, respond IF you EVER look at this thread again????

Just remember, one of the most FAMOUS versions on that phrase (probably NOT the first) is from Song of Songs/Solomon, written approx. 3,000 years ago. Just as true today. I am looking forward to it. Maybe it will make 2 better and seem a bit less wandering (tie in loose ends that seemed superflous to the plot and drive of 2). CRASH (me throwing my brain and concern for history through the glass and out the window)

THANKS!!!!!! I see a project on the near horizon (probably a few-> to hold gear and "kilt stuff")!

OK, Third times the charm . . . Works now, go figure . . .

THANKS!!!!!! THAT is MOST interesting and helpful.

Maybe . . . it's just the Mac thing, BUT all I get is the skull/bones logo!

A friend of mine LOVES that show and he has a pet monkey (a REAL monkey) they actually BOTH chain smoke cigarettes as they watch! I actually watch him and the monkey FAR more than the show. A chain-smoking monkey is FAR more interesting, exciting, and excitable than American Idol. I am NOT kidding!!!!!!!!!!

Guilding that rear end MUST have HURT!!!!!

Precisely! Golden Hind not Queen Anne's Revenge. Put another way: Elizabethan period, not Georgian. Ruffs not cravats. NOR the English Jacobean . . . (James I (VI of Scotland) through the Charlies and the numbskull James II (VII)

What I can say is that it reflects many of the popular MYTHS about the period and piracy. It is good to KNOW what the myths are, so when we are faced with them, we know EXACTLY what the people are talking about. Thus, we can phrase our answers in a way to avoid the myths without it being as "THAT'S BULL!!" (even if it is). In that way, we can correct by informing without embarassing. That is how I deal with many of the Scottish myths and legends, such as what "Tartan" means (technically the material, not the pattern), the sett (the pattern), and their age, meaning, and the age and historic development of the kilt (NOTHING like what was in Braveheart has EVER been seen in anything CLOSE to that period and the garment itself is SO far off a belted plaid/great kilt as to be laughable). Knowing the misconception helps me avoid unintentionally embarassing someone actually interested in the matter (and thereby angering them in the process, so they are "fight" mode and not "learn" mode). Knowing the misconception can prepare me for addressing it in public in a manner that takes out the underlying thoughts FIRST, then I can "take the wind out of thge sails" of the error, and refill it with REALITY! (The same thing applies to other things, ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS ISSUES-> which is enough off topic, I'll go no further. I'll just say that I INTENTIONALLY watch programs I SEVERELY disagree with to listen to the arguement and see WHY it is incorrect and the thought process behind it. Thus, when I meet someone who actually BELIEVES it, I can understand it an deal with it in a careful, logical, sensitive, and helpful manner.) EXAMPLE: Pirate flags: "Aren't they neat. I especially love the X,Y, and Z ones. To bad there isn't any period documentation for most of them." Then I can discuss WHICH ones are proven and which are not. INSTEAD of: That's crap! Rackham (or fill in name) never flew that!!!" Then it opens a heated arguement.

Just FYI -- the costumes in "Sea Hawks" are wrong. They vary from a little wrong (wrong period or mixing periods) to VERY wrong (completely made up by the costume director). Don't use it as a visual reference. It's is very VERY Hollywood. But I love the movie... You just can't beat Errol Flynn! Here are some great pictures of my favourite Elizabethan living history group, Bonaventure: Click on Gallery and then on Elizabethan. Thanks, Like I said, I didn't know. The good/bad part of when it was made is that the costumes and set (sometimes just dressing on a "standard" set) is REAL hit and miss. Some are amazing, while other are as bad as Braveheart (one of my favs anyways) and Robin Hood:Prince of Thieves (proof to me that Cosner is NOT a great actor) and all in between. Kass, if you say it and unless I KNOW it to be wrong (yet to happen), I trust your statements.\ My point: don't THINK Blackbeard (OR MORGAN), THINK Drake.

Just to get a "mind frame" on the period, think "Spanish Armada," Francis Drake, Hawkins, and so forth. Film-wise, it is the period of "Sea Hawks" (Errol Flynn), though I can't say whether or not the film costumes are accurate or not. Hollywood-wise, that particular period of film making is actually better most give credit for. They had HUGE costume manufacturing departments and historians working with the producers and directors. Brief Aside: The accuracy for a particular film depends largely upon the studio's priority and where and when the film fell among the other productions. Some had a whole plethora of costumes created for them with incredible accuracy. They would then reuse these costumes on other productions. If the later films were higher priority, they got the good costumes. Another film made at the same time would have to make do. Additionally, the directors/producers could/would IGNOR the historians on staff and choose costumes for "look" rather than accuracy (so that varied WIDELY). Flynn's "Robin Hood" is actually considered one of the best of all time for repesenting the costumes of the late 12th C. and around 1200. Some of the Robin Hood costumes (I've been told) are still in circulation among costume houses and used for all sorts of periods where they were NOT correct. I'm sure the film experts among us could baffle and amaze us at what they know on current Hollywood, as well as the past. Most pop-culture pirates are MUCH too late for the period in question, so try and get them OUT of your thinking COMPLETELY! Morgan was latter 1600s, GAoP (Teach, Roberts, Rackham, Reed, Bonny etc.) was EARLY 1700s!!!

In regards to the fly, a common associate of Kass and mine has noted a "fly" in a kilt. (I'm not sure how that is much easier than simply "lifting the kilt" to do your "standing business" or your "horizontal" business). I'll see if I can find the link to the fly kilt.

I NEVER said I was better, actually FAR from it. I just like things that most folks who like one or 5 don't like them all. Hand, have you finished the Labrinth Goblin head/costume?

Kyle is driving the 45 Marathon oil car. He does the Petty Ride Across America annually to raise money for his Victory Camp. Honestly, he has never been the same since Adam passed away (his son died in practice for a Nascar Cup race in 2000, one of several to die of neck injuries the year before Earnhardt. The HANS device is a great thing (Though I'm sure most are lost already). Kyle is not in the public lime-light like he once was and has withdrawn more and more into running Petty Enterprises and getting the 43 car (now driven by Bobby Labonte) back to winning. Yes, I am a VERY ODD blend of things and there is none like me (and I have yet to meet one even CLOSE).

A Wee Bit of explanation: The Princess Bride: movie from the 80s that is now a much quoted "cult classic" Indigo Montoya: Spanish sword master played by the actor Mandy P. -He seeks revenge on the 6-fingered man who killed his father. When he meets the 6-fingered man he will (and does) say: "My name is Indigo Montoya, you killed my father! Prepare to die!" Juan Pablo Montoya: (short and simplified version) race car driver from Columbia. He was an up and coming superstar under Williams F1 racing organization. He was "lent" to Chip Ganasi for CART (Indianapolis-stye open-wheel race cars), where JPM won a championship and the Indy 500. JPM then went back to Williams and raced and won (notably at the Monaco GP) F1 races there and for MacLaren. After a VERY rough time last season, JPM rejoined Chip Gannasi to race in Chip's NASCAR stock cars, once again as a "rookie." He is racing in the "major" Nextel Cup Series and the "minor" Busch Series. Last Sunday, he won his first NASCAR race, a Busch series road coarse in Mexico City. I have been mixing the Indigo quote with JPM since the CART days, now I get to share with the world . . .

I don't recall asserting that there was an unbroken line of mens underwear. The question was "Is there any peroid underwear"? The answers is yes there certainly was. Mens under garments can ALSO be documented 100s of years prior to the GAoP. I don't believe there was any implication that everyone actually wore undies. -CS What?????? Undies??????? With my kilt???????????? OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!! Back to topic . . . Yes, undies are well documented and didn't change very rapidly. I'd have to defer to experts to the approximate dates of the shifts that did happen. Even then, for significant periods there was overlap and usually several types going at the same time. For more "athletic" endevors, there was usually a tighter variation for men to "hold everything together." To cite the Old Testament, it was termed to "gird your loins," which kept anything from getting pulled in more "energetic" actions. Think modern "boxers" and "briefs"/"strap" (but forget the cup, I don't remember any precuser for that (though one may have existed after all). Things always seem SO much simpler kilted . . . ,

For Nascar (and F1) fans everywhere . . . "My name is Juan Pablo Montoya, You killed by Father Prepare to DIE!!!!"

Thanks Pirate King. Remember, my intent is for miniture ones in 1/48 scale (about 1-2 inches long) and non-firing. Looking at your site . . . Were there both brass and iron cannons aboard a typical larger pirate ship of the GAoP? Were the brass ones THAT much smaller than the iron ones? Since the iron/brass issue has been raised . . . What color would they have been? The iron is obviously black (Iron-colored). What about the brass ones? Gold-ish as modern brass or more of a bronze/copper-ish tone (as I seem to remember someone on this forum mentioning that bronze was more copper toned than the modern gold tones brass).

Pirates would have a lotta fun with a real lightsaber . . .

Thank, I was actually thinking of doing that to cast a cannon I picked up somewhere (makes excellent scale 6 pounder) and may try some of the more generic figures. Now, to see how the alumilte compares in bang-for-buck to the other ones I got my hands on now. I was hoping to find some "army man" cheap ones, like the baseball players I am using for my Ponce Park ballfield and the football players I am using for my Falcons/Panthers game model. Oh well, these will look better anyways, only I'll be spending more "crewing" my ship than I spent on the kit itself.

Go ahead, I LOVE the home-made bladed stuff. I have done a lot of homemede, but not yet any weaponry. I've used my dremel mostly for model (plastic and diecast) projects, but am thinking of trying more wood milling (squin duhbs, dirks, and the like). I might try a grip now and use a cheap cutlass blade to make something unique (for display, as I don't trust a cheap sword for anything funtional). I have a number of swords I bought (mostly to be used for Scottish stuff). I was simply at a hardware store and looking a axes for some home suff. I looked over at the machettes to cut some foliage vines and noticed how the blade outline looked roughly like a cutlass. The problem looks like the blade of a cutlass is more curved on the backside of the blade. I much prefer nicer stuff. GREAT JOB Mr. Hand & Captain Midnight both!!! Take this thread anywhere you want to go (although a new one mught be read by those who are interested, but not looked into this one).

Bang-for-buck then, these are still a decent way to go: http://www.museumreplicas.com/webstore/eCa..._and_armor.aspx I like the concept of: (Basically, one of their older baskethilt claymore baskets fitted onto a cutlass.) I might get a machette, just for the hack of it anyways . . .