Fox wrote:To me that seems like a good piece of journalism; it isn't 100% flattering to re-enactors, but then perhaps it shouldn't be. There is something slightly tasteless, and yet, at the same time, comical, about battle re-enactments.
Fox wrote:To me that seems like a good piece of journalism; it isn't 100% flattering to re-enactors, but then perhaps it shouldn't be.
Jim Smith wrote:... I think a lot of us look like we're losing sight of the fact that we're 're-creating' an event where thousands of people butchered each other.
Marcus Woodhouse wrote:For the same reason that James Bond/Die Hard/Jaws/LOTR get shown over Easter/Xmas/bank holidays-escapist fun.
If you really wanted a guarente of violence and bloodshed you'd watch motorsport/boxing or get banjoed and start singing footie songs.
Sasha wrote:Come back to the same thing though - why is depicting violent death seen as 'fun'?
Daniel Ezra wrote:Which idiot allowed a photographer on the field in modern kit, plus a bonnet?
Eric the well read wrote:Some reasoned argument there.
Can I ask your opinions on this? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/destinations/england/article4572704.ece
It's quite old and a bit long but worth reading to the end. Is this what we should be aiming for?
Foxe wrote:I'll second Fox. Considering the fact that as reenactors we do leave our jobs as clerks and trolley-boys on Friday to drive hundreds of miles, wear clothes that haven't been in fashion for x-hundred years, and pretend to be soldiers (in the context of this piece), it was not an unfair article in the slightest. I suggest those who found it offensive (barring complaints about factual innaccuracy) should have a look at their hobby from the outside.
Phil the Grips wrote:But...but...but put like that I'm only one tiny step away from being a...a...a...morris dancer!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests