The blatantly aluminum "armor" sucked - Excalibur (1981) Discussion

[–] Hybrid66 (1516) a year ago

What the fuck are you on about?

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

Reading Deficiency Alert

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2232) a year ago

Imagine his tiny mind exploding when he learns all the chainmail in the LotR movies is made out of garden hose.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

"Imagine his tiny mind"

Comical Irony Alert, you know, coming from someone who is onboard with someone who tacitly admitted that he doesn't know how to read properly, and who also posted this laughable non sequitur:

"when he learns all the chainmail in the LotR movies is made out of garden hose."

In reality:

How did they make the chainmail for LOTR?

They are Christopher Smith and Carl Payne, and it took them roughly two years. According to Smith, each suit is comprised of 13 thousand metal rings, which each have to be interlinked with pliers. With every suit representing three days of work, it caused the pair to developing thick calluses on their fingers.

https://www.mensjournal.com/streaming/lord-of-the-rings-chainmail

Furthermore, even if it had been made out of garden hose, it only matters if it's apparent onscreen that it's made out of garden hose. The problem isn't that they made the suits of armor out of aluminum in and of itself, it's that it was apparent that it was aluminum, which is not only an unsuitable material, but it's also a major anachronism. It's like showing a Model T Ford drive by Camelot.

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2232) a year ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=naCRnEWP1B8

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

What of it? They aren't using any garden hoses, nor anything sourced from garden hoses, in that video.

Also, like I already said, it doesn't matter what something is actually made of, it only matters what's apparent onscreen. In the case of Excalibur, the aluminum is not only apparent, but it's blatantly obvious, due to it being large pieces of bare, polished aluminum sheet that got lots of screen time and closeups. Had the armor been, e.g., painted or oil-blackened, it wouldn't have mattered that it was aluminum, because its true color would have been hidden so no one would have been able see that it was aluminum.

reply

[–] TimeTunnel (4769) a year ago

No joke, I always admired people who can tell what exactly a small piece of metal is.
Unfortunately I don't have this talent.
But what is very helpful in real life can obviously ruin an actually good film. 🙁

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) a year ago

How do you know it was aluminum?
I think a lot of the armor we see in movies is plastic because
metal is too hard to work, too expensive, too uncomfortable
and too heavy.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

"How do you know it was aluminum?"

Because of the color of it.

"I think a lot of the armor we see in movies is plastic because
metal is too hard to work, too expensive, too uncomfortable
and too heavy."

I didn't see any plastic armor. The silver-colored armor was clearly made from aluminum sheet. Also, historical steel armor wasn't very heavy (the idea that it was is a myth), and making it out of aluminum would make it very light, because aluminum only has a density of ~2.7 g/cm3 whereas steel has a density of ~7.85 g/cm3 (nearly 3 times as heavy by volume).

reply

[–] Befus (502) a year ago

It's been ages since I saw this movie, but I do remember the armor being very shiny. And I think that's what they wanted to fit with the mythical fairytale setting of "Knights in shining armor".

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

Polished steel is just as shiny as polished aluminum.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21711) a year ago

Yeah, but they found the aluminum was quieter and didn’t rust, so they switched even though every arrow would go right through it. Gotta take the good with the bad.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

Polished steel doesn't rust either, at least not easily. If you were really concerned about it you could just hose it down with some 3M dry-type silicone spray after polishing and you won't have to worry about it for years, or decades, as long as you're not leaving it outside. A lot of guns have bare polished steel parts (known as "in-the-white") and those don't rust under normal conditions. My Colt Government Model that I bought new in 1991 has an in-the-white chamber hood that has never rusted, for example. And for the record, aluminum will corrode under certain conditions too. For example:

https://fractory.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/aluminium-corrosion.jpg.webp

As for quieter: why would aluminum be quieter, and why would it even matter? For this particular movie, little-to-no sound was recorded during filming. It was added in the studio during post-production.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21711) a year ago

I was joking as if they were doing that in the days of Arthur.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

Ah, okay.

reply

[–] Befus (502) a year ago

You would never get steel to be as bright and shiny as in this movie without a lot of working and finishes that cost money.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

"You would never get steel to be as bright and shiny as in this movie without a lot of working and finishes that cost money."

What are you talking about? It's easier to polish mild steel than aluminum, because aluminum gums up sandpaper. In any case, sheet steel, especially cold-rolled sheet steel, is already quite smooth. It wouldn't take much to polish it. Just hit it with a buffing wheel, the same as you'd do with already-smooth aluminum sheet.

reply

[–] ByTheVineyard (588) a year ago

This movie sucked enormously, and it is not the aluminum, extremely dated direction, the 80s shows on it. Lets face it, most 80s things suck hard, it was a failure decade

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) a year ago

This must be a troll post because the 80s were awesome.

reply

[–] Lige (357) a year ago

Whole thread's a troll job.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) a year ago

Too bad, the movie was otherwise so realistic and historically accurate.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

I wish I had a dollar for every person on the internet who doesn't understand the concept of "like reality unless noted."

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) a year ago

Maybe it was more important the armours to be shiny than some realistic material. It's possible that it is you who don't understand the concept of art...

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

"Maybe it was more important the armours to be shiny than some realistic material."

They could have simply made it out of steel, the same as they did hundreds of years ago. Polished steel is just as shiny as polished aluminum. As a bonus, steel is the correct material to use (and therefore inherently looks correct onscreen) and is typically cheaper than aluminum.

For example, on the MetalsDepot website, a 4×8', 1/16" thick sheet of 3003 aluminum (which is the cheapest aluminum alloy in sheet form that they sell) costs $154.88, while A1011 steel sheet in the same dimensions costs $122.24. And since steel is a lot stronger than aluminum, they could have gone significantly thinner than 1/16" and saved even more money.

"It's possible that it is you who don't understand the concept of art..."

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

reply

[–] Befus (502) a year ago

I promise you it would be far more expensive to make a bunch of wearable suits of armor out of steel, that also look good enough to be convincing in a movie as opposed to aluminum.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

Steel is cheaper than aluminum, and since it's much stronger, you can use significantly thinner sheets of it compared to aluminum, which would be just as easy to cut and form as the thicker aluminum.

reply

[–] Befus (502) a year ago

There's more to consider than just the price of raw materials. Steel is harder to work and would require someone with actual blacksmith skills to produce. It would also take much longer to produce. Blacksmiths cost money and time, both of which are things movie makers are usually trying to save. With aluminum, I'd imagine a decent prop department could work something up much quicker and cheaper. Also aluminum is lighter and probably easier for the actors who might have to wear it for long periods of time.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

"There's more to consider than just the price of raw materials. Steel is harder to work"

Once again: "[...] and since it's much stronger, you can use significantly thinner sheets of it compared to aluminum, which would be just as easy to cut and form as the thicker aluminum."

"and would require someone with actual blacksmith skills to produce."

No. The process of forming thin sheet steel to a particular shape is no different than forming aluminum sheet to a particular shape. It would all be done with body-working tools, such as a sheet metal brake, English wheel, body hammers and dollies, etc. Steel sheet is easier to work than aluminum sheet. Ask any body man whether they'd rather do body work on a normal steel-bodied car or an aluminum-bodied car.

"It would also take much longer to produce. Blacksmiths cost money and time, both of which are things movie makers are usually trying to save. With aluminum, I'd imagine a decent prop department could work something up much quicker and cheaper."

Negated by your false premise (see above).

"Also aluminum is lighter and probably easier for the actors who might have to wear it for long periods of time."

It's not lighter when you can use sheet steel that's 1/3rd the thickness of the aluminum sheet and still have more than enough strength.

reply

[–] Befus (502) a year ago

Brother you can argue all you want, but there's a reason movies have been using aluminum armor for as long as they've been making movies.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

You haven't provided a valid reason yet, and in what other movies did they use armor that was obviously aluminum? In any case, it sucks regardless of what movie it's in.

Whoever made this didn't have any problem using steel (high-carbon steel no less, 18 gauge):

https://www.kultofathena.com/product/armor-of-the-duke-of-burgundy/

A movie production with an $11 million budget (1981 dollars) can't do the same? They wouldn't have even needed to use high-carbon steel for movie props, and they could have gone even thinner than 18 gauge.

reply

[–] Befus (502) a year ago

The reason is that aluminum is easier and cheaper to work with by most prop departments. And I agree it sucks. As a lifetime enthusiast of all things arms and armor I wish movies set in a medieval period weren't always full of anachronisms. But they are.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

"The reason is that aluminum is easier and cheaper to work with by most prop departments."

No, it isn't. Aluminum sheet is a pain to work with compared to steel sheet. It's much harder to weld and it's far more likely to crack from metal fatigue when bending than steel is. Whoever made those aluminum suits of armor for Excalibur inherently had everything they needed, both tools and knowledge, to make them out of steel. From an achievement standpoint, making the armor out of aluminum is actually more impressive, because it's a more difficult metal to work with than steel, but it's worse for the movie.

There is no blacksmithing required. The only reason blacksmiths were required hundreds of years ago for such a task is because they couldn't go out and buy sheet steel, so they had to start with a billet and forge/hammer it out into thin sheets. They would have had to do the same thing if they wanted to use aluminum hundreds of years ago (had it been discovered yet, which it hadn't). When you're starting with thin sheet metal, it's already very formable at room temperature, and if you do want to add some heat for certain tasks, you can just use a torch; you don't need a forge.

reply

[–] thingmakersback (1444) a year ago

a) Who cares?
b) This story is set in a fantasy world where magic works and unfeasibly clumsy swords can be practical... probably through more magic. Why in the name of Crom would you assume that a metal that is as good as steel but looks a bit like aluminum might not exist? (Mithril anybody? Or do you object to silver that is stronger and lighter than steel?)
c) Films use woven fabric for chainmail and plastic for plate armor all the time... If these people actually subbed aluminum, why is that a bad thing?

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

"a) Who cares?"

Why are you asking me? Do you think I've done a survey? Also, it doesn't matter who cares.

"b) This story is set in a fantasy world where magic works and unfeasibly clumsy swords can be practical... probably through more magic. Why in the name of Crom would you assume that a metal that is as good as steel but looks a bit like aluminum might not exist? (Mithril anybody? Or do you object to silver that is stronger and lighter than steel?)"

Utterly irrelevant. You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of "like reality unless noted," which is a standard by which all movies can be judged.

"c) Films use woven fabric for chainmail and plastic for plate armor all the time..."

First, it only matters if it's apparent onscreen. In the case of this movie, it was not only apparent that it was aluminum, but also there was a ~constant reminder of it because the armor had so much screen time. Second, what other movies do is irrelevant. This is the Excalibur message board, not the "other movies" message board.

"If these people actually subbed aluminum, why is that a bad thing?"

I already said why it's a bad thing, which is the same reason that all errors in works of fiction are a bad thing, i.e., it interrupts suspension of disbelief, which is also known as being "taken out of the movie."

reply

[–] thingmakersback (1444) a year ago

Sorry. I was wrong. Sorry your suspension of disbelief has been interrupted.

My basic reason for ignoring any minor physical flaws in this film is that it is one of the only decent Arthurian films ever made. I would name as the only other one - Perceval... Although Monty Python and the Holy Grail is in the running.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21711) a year ago

“Did they really think that aluminum could pass for steel onscreen?”

I’d bet the thought of it not being the correct material for the era never even occurred to the vast majority of viewers. I’m sure that for the majority of those who did notice, it did not decrease their enjoyment of the film for them.

I know one thing, I’d take Excalibur (1981) with all its flaws over the CGI of today.

reply

[–] Guitar King (5105) a year ago

Shut up, retard. Yo Momma sucked me last night.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4846) a year ago

Your non sequitur is dismissed, clodpate, and since you're obviously nothing but a garbage poster, you're now on ignore.

reply

[–] Guitar King (5105) a year ago

Only the weak and fragile put people on ignore.

reply