seventy2
Aurora Borealis
research research research…
it's funny how two documentaries I found on youtube on the same topic share a lot of scenes. I always thought stock footage meant old films, not modern 3d renderings of battles and costumed scenes. Now I'm stuck wondering whether show #1 took these from show #2, or was it the other way around.
if it's on US military, we actually give footage to people doing authorized documentaries. it's basically political censoring. it makes sure that nothing makes us look bad. so everyone gets a stock set of footage.
Interesting. Although kinda predictable. No military wants to make themselves look bad (unless they want to make themselves look badass, heh)
ramlama
Aurora Borealis
research research research…
I did a comic once where I knew that if I did too much research, I'd never get to the actual project- so I cut it short very, very quickly. 100 pages later, I realized I'd been drawing completely unrealistic loincloths the entire time (and everyone was wearing one). Awwwwwwwkwaaaaard.
Yeah, too much research and you won't get anything off the ground, distracted by side-topics.
bravo1102
You'd be surprised how much stock footage of the World War II eastern front is actually culled from 1960's Soviet war movies. There's something weird about those Tigers… yeah it's because they're T-34s wrapped up in sheet metal.
Also in every feature on Pearl Harbor the same footage of US Navy Dauntless dive bombers repainted as Japanese planes is used. It's from the “Why we Fight” wartime documentary series on the Day of Infamy.
lol! You don't use youtube documentaries for research. You'll end up with tartan wearing Medieval Scots or every British redcoat with blue facings. Find the model builder or reinactor forums and ask them. Armorrama or Missing Lynx are good starts. They live, eat and breathe this stuff. There's a difference between putting something in that “looks cool” and portraying it how it really worked.
Ahh, but see, that's the thing. I'm not depicting history but alternate history. That is, I choose an event that happens in the past and change some crucial element and head off in a different direction.
In this case, the veering off point is the campaign of Boudicca against the Romans in which she wins and drives them off. Thus the britain as we know it does not happen, the Roman influence is negligible, Londinium is not rebuilt etc. etc.
So technically there's no research for what I want. The action of the actual story happens at least a couple of hundred years later, the fates of both Britain and Rome went different course and I'm trying to simply cut out as many “romanisms” as possible but without dwelling too deep into “Celtisms”, especially no typically Celtic/Gaelic names.
I did get stuck on stupid names though haha. What do I call England? Obviously not England since that name comes from Angles/Anglo-Saxons who came after the Romans left. Oh, it's easy then, Albion, right? But no, this appears to be a “Gaello-Roman” name according to wiki which means it most likely wouldn't be used there.
So I'm thinking Brythu… from Brythons (Brittons) where the word Britain comes from. And also a nice nod to Robert E. Howard's Brythunia in Conan stories. :D
Or I could say whatever and stick with Albion saying "oh yeah, the name caught on during the short Roman rule and got stuck) or whatever.
In the end it's meant to be more fantasy than reality so it's all about making the background somewhat feasible.
As for the Romans, I have not figured out the whole history yet but they're meant to be sort of a post-christianized roman empire with a slightly strong teutonic knight slant in their looks (crosses and all). I'll read/view on that more later. :D
In short: it's meant to be an illusion of a functional alternative world without any gaping logical holes in it :D