The Last Legion (movie)

[Dennis A Lederl]

Last week I was watching the movie "The Last Legion" which a prequel to the King Arthur story. It is supposed to be about how Uthor Pendragon came to England from Rome (according to this he was a boy Ceasar and fled there to keep from being killed like the other ceasars).
It was a supposedly historical movie based on a historical novel.
So the last of the guards rescues him and takes him to Britainia where he is protected by the Last Legion in England.
Okay!
But why are all these Roman Legionairs running around wearing pants under their tunics? It shades of Kevin Sorbo's Hercules, where he runs around in Macho leather pants.
The Macho thing in Hollywood doesn't let actors where anything but pants now.
Is this a consipracy?
Maybe!
But who's?
Thank God, we've had a few brave actors, like Brad Pitt and Mel Gibsen (in spite of the other technical errors in their films). At Least they wore something other then pants.
This is the kind of nonsence that keep kilt or skirt wearing at bay.
Dennis

No skirt today! It's -2 ouside with wind chills of -15.
Do you think that Packer fan will be wearing his kilt to the game tomorrow? He's always shown by the TV cameras of game days.

[Peter v]

It's about time that more men were seen wearing skirts ( but in a serious way) in serials like "Friends", etc.

In other serials, there may be often gay men, or lesbian women, and they are from what I have seen protrayed very respectfully.
http://www.nbc.com/Will_&_Grace_Finale/

Will and Grace.


It's time men wearing skirts were part of it. And not just a one time "i'm just doing this for a laugh today" thimg.
But an everyday wearer. Not only a kilt either. Kilts are well known and kan be readily worn. But other skirts are for some reason to many not regarded as the same.

There was a great serial from the UK a while back here in the Netherlands, called "Monarch of the glen" in which kilts were worn daily by some and often by others.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/tv/monarch/

Peter v.

[Raakone]

I definitly agree with you there. Men's skirts...be they skirts, kilts, sarongs, or what-have-you, need more exposure.

As for what you said Dennis, well, it depends what point in Roman history. Soldiers did start wearing pants under their tunics, at least when in foul-weather, and also in the northern reaches of the territory, and later on, during the "Christian" era, they became more commonly worn by the military, and also by lower classes (but Roman upper classes considered them "crude." At one time, pants vs. tunics was what defined who the "barbarians" were). However, if you want inaccuracy with pants, watch Gladiator. It seems that in the Pre-Christian era and in warmer climates, lots of men are wearing visible pants beneath the tunics. Even the boys in Rome are wearing...BICYCLE SHORTS that are a little too easy to see (they could have at least made the tunic longer if the actor was uncomfortable). That just looks tacky!

My $0.02,
~Ra'akone

[Dennis A Lederl]

My whole purpose of this post is to point out the sometimes not so subtle way that the media manages what we see and hear.
They promote the "macho" concepts of what men can and can't do and what the male ideal is.
I first noticed it in High School Football.
American Football I should add.
It's, to say the least, a rough sport to play. I love watching it, because I marvel that anyone is masochistic enough to subject themselves to that kind of punishment.
My first day was a rude shock. I was hurt enough to feel it and the coach just said shake it off. Hey, coach, shake this!!!!
Being tough isn't the same as being mean and we promote men being mean in our western cultures.
So skirted garments of any sort, all of which are accociated with gentleness and femininity in our culture becomes a sign of weakness.
Starnge, there was a lot of really tough hombres that never wore pants.
But we promote the idea all the same.
Dennis A. Lederle

[Departed Member]

But why are all these Roman Legionairs running around wearing pants under their tunics?

It's a common misconception that what appear to be 'tr*users' (in the modern idiom) were in fact just that, tr*users, i.e., a tr*user for each leg! That's why the plural has been used for so long to describe such a (modern) garment. Even in medieval times, separate, un-connected leg-coverings under a tunic, were still in vogue. Just like knickers in Victorian times, two independant garments (hence the plural,again!). The difference being that knickers each had a waistband, which overlapped one another. In either scenario, no crotch!

The Macho thing in Hollywood doesn't let actors where anything but pants now...........This is the kind of nonsence that keep kilt or skirt wearing at bay.

The film industry has much to answer for mis-conceptions, some quite major, I'm afraid. The glaring one (relevant to this forum) is that Sassenach chap, William Wallace, depicted wearing a Kilt!

[Jock]

The Macho thing in Hollywood doesn't let actors where anything but pants now.
Is this a consipracy?
Maybe!

I notice from the trailer (I can't be bothered to watch this tripe at the cinema) that Hollywood also is pushing other agendas: The token ethnic minority guy, the "I'm better than any man" woman (wearing pants, too.), etc. I'm surprised that we don't have any gay people or someone with an AK47 type bow & arrows shouting "I'll be back!"
A good look at this film is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Legion which describes the "loose historical basis" and the many historical inconsistencies.
The trailer on the Apple site declares -"The Last Legion” is a fantasy action-adventure in the vein of “The Sword and the Stone” (my emphasis)

However, at the end of the day this is just entertainment and when did Hollywood bother to get facts right?